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 Lebezniatnikov I don't - I think there were plenty of Democrats who thought Bush's policies would fail and as such advocated alternate policies. Anybody who went so far as to hope that Bush would fail is as despicable as Rush. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Come on. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't - I think there were plenty of Democrats who thought Bush's policies would fail and as such advocated alternate policies. Anybody who went so far as to hope that Bush would fail is as despicable as Rush. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Come on. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Moreover, the point was if any Democrat said something like that during Bush's heyday Republicans would have castrated them for being unpatriotic. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Seriously. If his policies had succeeded we wouldn't be in some of the situations we find ourselves today. I'd trade that for political popularity in a heartbeat. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka It did not help to have obstructionists like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi working furiously against them at every step of the way. I'm pretty sure Reid was happy to see Bush fail. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka It did not help to have obstructionists like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi working furiously against them at every step of the way. I'm pretty sure Reid was happy to see Bush fail. |
who are these bots that make up the CPAC audience?
Limbaugh:Obama has great communication skills
crowd:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OMG THAT WAS SO FUCKING FUNNY GOTTA LOVE RUSH!!!
Limbaugh: No, I was serious.
*instant silencing of bots*
John Stewart owned CPAC in about a minute. 4 more years! 4 more years!
I was interested to hear Limbaugh's speech, i thought he could possibly provide me with a good definition of what "conservatism" really means in today's politcal environment, or at the least what a large base of the party percieves it to be. I didn't learn much, except a great deal of hypocrisy in his criticism of all things liberal.
were those fispumps supposed to be insults btw?
Neo cons are the kings of fearmongering, dont even try to make Barack compare.
I was a Bush support until around 2006, when it became obvious the man was running this country into the ground, and ruining millions of lives on the other side of the planet.
Watching Rush, I mean, in 2009 is there a more perfect stereotype of the obscenely rich, closet drug abusing, fat, white, american conservative blowhard as him?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Clovis Jesus Christ. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I'm pretty sure he was dead and wasn't hoping for Bush's failure. I was simply responding to the comment that his policies didn't work, but that nobody necessarily wanted him to fail. I would disagree as there were plenty (and I mentioned two specifically) that had a vested interest in Bush's failure, and probably derived pleasure from it. Remember Harry "I killed the Patriot Act" Reid? Remember Reid refusing to provide additional funding to the troops in 2005 when the body armor for Humvees was such an issue? I don't care what you think of the act (as well as many other policies), merely that there were plenty who wanted, and helped to ensure they didn't succeed, if not fail. This is a two way street. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka It did not help to have obstructionists like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi working furiously against them at every step of the way. I'm pretty sure Reid was happy to see Bush fail. |
Some Rush red-meat from today:
| quote: |
| RUSH: I know it's sort of like spitting into the wind here, but I want to make another point on this failure business. Remember back in 2002 when we had a plummeting Dow Jones Industrial Average and Dick Gephardt was happy? Dick Gephardt, then the Democrat leader in the House, gleefully said, "Every hundred-point drop in the stock market, we pick up another seat." You'd think Dick Gephardt was hoping for economic failure? Yes, Dick Gephardt was hoping for economic failure, and he was publicly gleeful when the economy was tanking. Back to the phones, to Chicago, this is Art. Great to have you on the program, sir, hello. CALLER: Rush, how you doing? RUSH: Good. Back to the phones, to Chicago, this is Art. Great to have you on the program, sir, hello. CALLER: Rush, how you doing? RUSH: Good. CALLER: ...I'll get to my question. Mr. Obama, I want him to succeed, he's the guy that probably says nothing more eloquently than even Paul Harvey, I want him to succeed so that even his followers would realize that on-the-job training is really not any way to run a presidency. Would I be wrong in wishing that? RUSH: What exactly are you wishing? CALLER: I'm wishing that he would succeed in so much that even his followers that voted for him would realize that on-the-job training is not a way to run a presidency. RUSH: It sounds to me you're hoping for economic failure so that people realize just how inexperienced and poor a President Obama is. CALLER: That's pretty much it, yeah. RUSH: See, I don't want that. I don't want it to happen that way. I'm afraid that it will but I don't want economic failure. I don't want the kind of pain and suffering that we have now to get any worse. It's the exact opposite. I don't want this economy to get worse just so people learn the truth about Obama. It may take that, I hope not, because if it takes that, we may not have enough power left to gain control of our economy the way it was. But I don't want the economy to fail. I don't want people losing their jobs and being kicked out of their houses. I don't want people going on welfare and unemployment just for people to realize what a mistake they made with Obama. I want Obama to fail in being successful with his economic plan. Now, if Barack Obama all of a sudden came out and said, "You know what? I think we need to do something here in the midst of this recession. I'm going to resend my capital gains tax increase and I'm going to suspend capital gains. And, you know what, I think we can really improve the economic circumstance if I would cut the corporate tax rate in half, and maybe just suspend capital gains for three months. Maybe have a tax holiday on FICA, Social Security withholding." Well, I tell you, I would become Barack Obama's biggest cheerleader in this country. If he actually proposed ideas to jump-start this economy, so there isn't any more economic pain and we can bottom out at some point and start building this back. But, folks, his plan doesn't do that. Government spending does not elevate the private sector. It does not stimulate the private sector. It does not in any way, shape, manner, or form expand the private sector. But hear me, and hear me loud. Look at me. I don't want the economy to fail. That's why I'm sticking my neck out here. I actually care about the people who are seeing their financial lives damaged and, in some cases, ruined. I'm the one, among many on my side, who are truly worried about this. Some of you are hoping that the words from Obama's mouth will magically bring you back. It ain't going to happen. I do not want economic collapse. This is it for me. This is enough. It's got to stop. The problem is this administration has no interest in it stopping right now. Investor's Business Daily today with a really nice op-ed editorial: "Capital on Strike." Money is on strike. People with money are on strike, and the Obama administration sits back and does nothing but attack a guy on the radio? Claiming this is what I want? I have no control. I am not in charge of one Republican policy. I have not authored or advocated one policy that is in play today used by either party. I'm no different than you, I'm an average citizen, I have a microphone, I'm sitting around here watching all this, I'm watching my wealth dissipate just like every one of you are. It is fatuous, it is ignorant, and it is irresponsible for journalists to claim I want this to happen. My question would be to the journalists who are acting as total butt boys for this administration, you all have your own degree of wealth. You all have your own 401(k)s and your investment portfolios. Are you people happy to see them vanish before your very eyes? Is the idea of the remaking of America into a so-called socialist paradise so important to you that you will sit around and happily, without any concern, watch your wealth dissipate and everybody else's? This is Obama's economy. They're trying to slough this off on Bush. They're trying to say all these deficits are Bush. They're not going to get away with that. They're not going to get away with that here. Nobody has spent like Obama, nobody has piled up debt like Obama. And it's not over. This notion that I am for economic failure, or that anybody is for economic failure, is crazy. There's one person who might be. Barack Obama. The one guy that could do something about this at least attitudinally is standing mute. Who benefits from this plunging economy? Ask yourself. Who gets more power? Who gets more curiosity? Who gets more panic? Who gets more anxiety? Obama does. And what does the panic and anxiety mean? How does it manifest itself? It manifests itself thus: "President Obama, please do something, please do something, Mr. Obama, please do something." He goes out and makes a speech for national health care, "Ah, I feel better, Obama is on the case." Meanwhile, the next day, zippo, another 200 points down. Ask yourself who benefits. It isn't me. I'm not benefiting from what's happening here. Mr. Snerdley is not, Dawn's not. Brian, you're not. Who's benefiting right now from what's going on? None of us are. The banks aren't benefiting, the automobile companies are not benefiting. Well, yeah, you could say people being allowed to stay in their homes and not having to pay for it, they may be benefiting, but how is that America? Ask yourself who's benefiting. Who said a crisis is a terrible thing to waste? That would be Rahm Emanuel. Now, any other president standing by while the market plunges to this degree would have said something by now to try to halt it, to try to inspire confidence in the American people, to go out and engage in commerce, to once again invest in the businesses, large and small that make the country work. Not President Obama. He stands mute. He says nothing. In fact, he does worse. He sends the Fed chairman out this morning to say we need tax increases. Well, Obama already said that, Mr. Chairman. So this is piling on, is it not? He said we need tax increases, we need socialized medicine. The president's already proposed that last Tuesday night in his speech in the House chamber. And the market duly starts going south again. |
I think it's really hilarious that Rush thinks the answer to our current economic malaise is to do exactly what we've been doing for the past 8 years.
If Rush keeps this up, the Dems will have much success.
This topic is a time bomb for Liberals.
| quote: |
| MARCH 2, 2009 RUSH LIMBAUGH, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST This clip from the weekend�s Conservative Political Action Conference reminds me exactly of what meetings of the Democratic Socialists of America sounded like in the nineteen-eighties. Just substitute �free-market capitalism� for �big government,� �the New Deal� for �the era of Reagan,� and everything else�the defensive contempt toward popular rule, the retreat into the comfort of a purified �philosophy,� the denunciations of unnamed appeasers within the ranks, the call to �stamp out� middle-way weaklings�is the same. I attended some of those conferences. With each year they became more righteous and more insular, and I remember exactly what it felt like to know that my side was going to be the losing side for years to come. I remember looking around at my fellow democratic socialists and wondering whether I really even belonged there. So if there were any quietly doubting conservatives at the CPAC conference, they have my sympathy, and a bit of unsolicited advice: the biggest obstacle to your eventual return to power is the kind of resistant and intolerant politics embodied so amply in the man at the podium. My prediction is that, in the short term�between now and at least 2012�this spirit will dominate the Republican Party, until the doubters become numerous and brave enough to make trouble. The very seriousness of the stakes in Obama�s gamble will drive most conservatives into an increasingly fanatical and self-isolating opposition. E. J. Dionne describes the stakes perfectly: The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade-long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth. Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism�s bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue. Dionne goes on to chide Republican critics for labeling a two-per-cent increase in government�s share of the economy a form of �wild-eyed state socialism.� But, in a sense, the Republicans are right about that two per cent: it�s not state socialism, but it is the return of liberalism, which�from their point of view�is just about as awful. POSTED BY GEORGE PACKER IN POLITICS http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...gepacker/?xrail |
Rush needs to get back on the Oxycontin and shut the fuck up!
David Plouffe may be the most brilliant political operative since Lee Atwater's brutal takedown of Dukakis in 88, and here's what he has to say about the implications of Rush pwning the entire Republican Party:
| quote: |
| Minority Leader Limbaugh By David Plouffe Wednesday, March 4, 2009; A15 The 2008 election sent many messages. At the top: Americans wanted to turn the page on the politics of division and partisan pettiness, and they wanted a government -- and country -- that would put the middle class first. Watching the Republicans operate this past month, it would appear that they missed that unmistakable signal. Instead, Rush Limbaugh has become their leader. Limbaugh, of course, told his radio listeners that he's rooting for President Obama to fail -- and hoping the president's ideas for bolstering our economy fail with him. For many Americans, hungry for leadership and cooperation, this sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard. When Limbaugh reiterated the sentiment this weekend, hundreds of Republican conservatives cheered him on. But instead of rebuking the radio personality or charting their own course, Republican leaders in Washington are paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader. Less than 24 hours after committing the unforgivable sin of criticizing Limbaugh, RNC Chairman Michael Steele felt compelled to publicly apologize. He was not the first and will certainly not be the last. Limbaugh's voice could be heard in the words of new Republican quarterback Eric Cantor, who says the GOP's strategy will be to "Just Say No" -- not for substantive or philosophical reasons but to advance Limbaugh's strategy for failure. Independent voters, those who find the ways of Washington particularly toxic, could be forgiven for wondering whether the Republican minority has any clue what is happening in our country. Last week's Post-ABC News poll shows that voters trust President Obama on the economy by a remarkable 35 percentage points more than they trust Republicans in Congress -- the biggest advantage for a president on this question since George H.W. Bush basked in public approval of his handling of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The source of Obama's advantage is critical: independent voters, who give the president high marks on his handling of the economy and his job overall. Obama won these voters, who famously recoil from what they see as overly partisan and shortsighted politics, by eight points in 2008 -- a dramatic improvement for the Democrats from 2004, when George Bush and John Kerry tied. There are other groups of voters worth watching. Among those with a history of voting in presidential elections, Obama and Sen. John McCain essentially ran even. Obama won first-time voters by a convincing 39 points -- owing largely to a combination of younger voters, Hispanic voters and disaffected voters. The sentiment seems alive and well today. Seventy-three percent of all voters, The Post found, believe that the president is trying to cooperate with Republicans. Only 36 percent believe the same to be true of the GOP. It would surprise no one to learn where new voters and independents came down on that question. Thus far, Republican leaders have let their strategy be guided by their most conservative base, capturing perhaps a third of the nation's voters. For Republican candidates seeking the support of right-wing activists in Iowa, who will exercise outsize influence in the presidential selection process in four years, that strategy -- while not entirely defensible in the midst of an economic crisis -- is understandable. But any party that hopes to actually govern must appeal to moderates. Today, "moderate" is not an adjective that many would associate with the GOP minority in Congress. And a strategy designed chiefly to satisfy the 33 percent of voters who approved of George Bush's performance last fall -- while turning off first-time and swing voters -- hardly seems like the best way out of the political wilderness. But Republicans aren't simply guilty of knee-jerk reactions in opposing efforts to reach common ground. They also thumb their noses at the middle class, those who are struggling mightily in these rocky economic times. One after the other, congressional Republicans declared before TV cameras that the president's economic recovery plan won't work -- that it would rocket the country toward socialism and would only make things worse. The truth? Obama's recovery package contains the biggest middle-class tax cut in history. It will create or save at least 3 million jobs. In every community, district and state, its impact will soon be felt. Obama has made clear that this measure, while crucial, won't solve all our economic problems overnight. But no matter what the eventual impact, congressional Republicans have staked out their position: steadfastly opposing something most Americans see as reducing middle-class taxes and creating jobs when the country needs those outcomes most. There is still time for Washington Republicans to join some of their colleagues outside the Beltway and become partners in progress. As Americans, we should all hope that happens. But if the GOP sticks with its strategy of failure as the only option, further eroding its brand with the people who decide elections, we may find out what it means for a political party to hit rock bottom. The writer is senior adviser at AKPD Message and Media, a political consulting firm. He served as campaign manager for Obama for America and Obama-Biden 2008. |
I'm not sure if it's been posted in this thread of somewhere else, but I saw this a week or so ago and it seems to fit perfectly.
Republican Game Theory
It's just sad that the only way Republicans feel they can "win" is if the USA as a whole loses. I realize that this is just that guy's opinion, but it does seem to fit the actions of the Republicans at this moment.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm not sure if it's been posted in this thread of somewhere else, but I saw this a week or so ago and it seems to fit perfectly. Republican Game Theory It's just sad that the only way Republicans feel they can "win" is if the USA as a whole loses. I realize that this is just that guy's opinion, but it does seem to fit the actions of the Republicans at this moment. |
DCCC new website, imsorryrush.com
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono It's just sad that the only way Republicans feel they can "win" is if the USA as a whole loses. I realize that this is just that guy's opinion, but it does seem to fit the actions of the Republicans at this moment. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.