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 We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights...

Yeah, I quite enjoyed that. Well, at least he hedged it by saying "we believe." I mean, you wouldn't normally preface a simple factual declaration as a statement of your "belief." It was as if he was subtly admitting: "I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about, but here's what I think anyway."

But I suppose that's what ought to be expected of a party whose rank-and-file think government policy should depend on the imaginary wishes of their imaginary friends...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov 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: Can't say I disagree.

One of the most brilliant, huh? lol.

Anyway that whole article is written under the premise, as believed by NeoPhono in his post, and the strategy propogated by the Democrats and repeated ad nausem by the sheep media supportes, that Rush is pushing for failure of this country. This is simply not true, as explained many times by me and with the backup of the direct quotes from Rush rather than cherry picked and twisted quotes/sound bites. But this doesn't fit the template of the Left, so they ignore it. Let me re-iterate one last time: Rush believes that the policies of government growth and excessive spending are counterproductive to a successful economy, and therefore wants those policies to fail so the country can succeed. What is wrong with saying that? Sheesh.

What is truly sad is that, as reported today by Politico, the Obama team has had a deliberate strategy in place MONTHS AGO aimed at the demonization of Rush. They have effectively fooled people into believing that a Chicago Machine politician really wanted to change the partisan nature of politics. It is now on the record, and not just speculation by "fear mongering right wingers":

quote:

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House. The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh�s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise. Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

If you read the rest of the article, you'll see how James Carville, Paul Begala, and even Stephonopolus have daily morning conference calls with Rahm Emanuel to coordinate an anti-Rush media blitz, and have been thinking that way since like October when they realized Rush had high negative polling numbers. It's really disgusting actually. Can you imagine if Bush had a morning war room session each day to strategize against Chris Matthews and Olbermann?

But this is what the Democrats have become. And sadly it's working. While the private sector wealth has dropped like 25% since November, all the Democrats can do is cry about Rush on a daily basis. It's a pathetic sideshow to cover up the greatest spending spree in history, touted as a "stimulus" to the economy.

Carville: �Your opponent can�t hit back when you have your fist in his face.� So much for changing the tone in Washington.

quote:

RUSH: My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance. They are power hungry. But, you know what? They've never had a serious debate over ideas. Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they're trying to do now. They don't want to engage opponents. Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent. They're not for a level playing field. They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny. So what do they do? They leak stories to The Politico intended to create impressions about their own importance and their brilliance, when in fact they aren't even bit players on the nation's stage. This is Emanuel, and this is Obama.

quote:

RUSH: My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance. They are power hungry. But, you know what? They've never had a serious debate over ideas. Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they're trying to do now. They don't want to engage opponents. Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent. They're not for a level playing field. They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny. So what do they do? They leak stories to The Politico intended to create impressions about their own importance and their brilliance, when in fact they aren't even bit players on the nation's stage. This is Emanuel, and this is Obama.

We really are living in fucking bizarro world.

It's absolutely astounding.

If you replace "they" with "I" in that paragraph, it all makes sense.

EDIT: forgot to respond to this stuff too, from Plouffe's article:

quote:

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.

This is a cruel joke. First of all, how do you measure a "saved" job. I like that nuanced choice of words- "create or save". We can see the plummeting number of private sector jobs (almost 700,000 in January), but I'm still waiting on those "saved jobs" numbers. Do government jobs fit in there? Is that what he's referring to? Because, none of them are losing work.

That whole line about "the largest middle class tax cut in history" is such bullshit. Who believes this? If he thinks an extra $13 per week this year, reduced to $8 per week in 2010 is a viable tax cut, then wow. If 40% of people don't pay taxes but get a "tax credit", and he wants to call that part of the tax cut, then wow. If he doesn't realize that the Bush tax cuts' expiration in 2010 will counteract whatever measley amount people will be getting in supposed benefits, then... shit.

And, he must not have read about the coming "Cap and Trade" policy that will be implemented, which will affect 100% of Americans right in the wallet.

Page 3: how it will depress growth----> http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf

quote:

Estimated GDP losses vary widely, from a 0.3%-0.5% to 3% drop in GDP below the business-as-usual projections in 2015 and a 1% to 10% drop in 2050. The timeframes of new technology development and growth in existing clean sources of energy, availability of offsets (domestic, international), and banking of allowances are likely to account for most of these differences in GDP costs estimates.

Don't even get me started on how this has failed in Europe. But, the bad news gets worse. Not only will the GDP drop over both the short and long terms, but the increased price of energy will result in substantial costs to all Americans, and not just Obamass 5% at the top (page 9):

quote:

We find that a mitigation path consistent with Lieberman-Warner�s provisions is equivalent to a permanent tax increase for the average American household. This increase is projected to amount to an additional $1100 in taxes in 2008. Moreover, this cap-and-trade �tax� increases over time in real terms from about $1400 to $2000 during 2015-2030 and approximately $2000 to $3000 in 2030-2050. The de facto tax increase becomes quite significant when one considers the average American household spends about $2500 on food annually, or approximately $208 monthly. The decrease in consumption per capita of $277 annually is equivalent to more than one month�s food budget for the average American household, keeping other consumption levels constant. Another way to gauge this cap-and-trade tax impact is comparing it to auto-loan payments. For example, a new 2009 C-Class Mercedes can be leased for around $429 per month. A decrease in consumption by $1110 amounts is equivalent to 2.5 monthly payments on this luxury car. This tax amounts to about almost three and a half monthly payments in 2015 and almost seven payments in 2050.

So we make less, get less, and pay more... or do without. Does this sound at ALL like America?

quote:

RUSH: �Long after we�re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they�re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn�t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.�

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss He doesn't believe in the premise that Obama's economic strategy will work to begin with, so he wants that to fail,

That doesn't make sense. I didn't believe George W. Bush's strategy in the War on Terror would succeed, but that certainly didn't mean I hoped it failed. I simply did what everyone in the opposition does and advocated an alternate course of action, and prayed for the best when it wasn't listened to.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss One of the most brilliant, huh? lol.

Did you miss the fact that he got a black man elected President 40 years after Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot for advocating equal rights?

Or maybe the fact that he revolutionized the grassroots ground game.

Sometimes I wonder if you pay attention to anything not talked about by Rush or Ed Morrisey.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss While the private sector wealth has dropped like 25% since November, all the Democrats can do is cry about Rush on a daily basis.

Um, I think they've done a great deal more than that. Surely you can see this, no?

quote:

Carville: �Your opponent can�t hit back when you have your fist in his face.� So much for changing the tone in Washington.

Perhaps I'm wrong... but Carville doesn't have a job in this administration, does he?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This is a cruel joke.

Why? Because you don't believe it, or because you don't like it?

quote:

First of all, how do you measure a "saved" job.

quote:

This assessment is based on simulations of Moody's Economy.com macroeconomic model system. Assuming no added fiscal stimulus except for that provided by the automatic stabilizers already in place, real GDP would decline for eight straight quarters, falling by a stunning 4.2% in 2009 and another 2.2% in 2010. This would be more severe than the early 1980s recessions, which, combined, were the worst since the Depression. Some 8 million jobs would be lost from the peak in employment at the start of 2008 to the bottom in employment by late 2010, pushing the unemployment rate to well over 11% by early 2011. The House stimulus plan would not forestall a sizable decline of 2.3% in real GDP in 2009, but it would ensure that real GDP returns to its previous peak by the end of 2010 (see Table 3). The fiscal stimulus limits the peak-to-trough decline in jobs to some 5 million, and the unemployment rate peaks at nearly 9% in early 2010. With the stimulus, the unemployment rate falls back to its full employment rate of close to 5% by early 2013. Without the stimulus, the unemployment rate rises to well over 11% by mid-2010 and ends 2012 at a still-extraordinarily high near 8% (see Chart 7).

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/d...Plan_012109.pdf

In answer to your question, from economists.

quote:

I like that nuanced choice of words- "create or save". We can see the plummeting number of private sector jobs (almost 700,000 in January), but I'm still waiting on those "saved jobs" numbers. Do government jobs fit in there? Is that what he's referring to? Because, none of them are losing work.

Nope - they're talking about stimulating demand in the private sector (something Republicans have yet to grasp the urgency of) in order to increase GDP (and hence profits) in order to keep companies from downsizing payrolls.

quote:

That whole line about "the largest middle class tax cut in history" is such bullshit. Who believes this?

Well I thought everybody acknowledged this, but evidently you don't? Fair enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov That doesn't make sense. I didn't believe George W. Bush's strategy in the War on Terror would succeed, but that certainly didn't mean I hoped it failed. I simply did what everyone in the opposition does and advocated an alternate course of action, and prayed for the best when it wasn't listened to.

It does make sense. How do you not get it? If he believes Obama's economic policies will lead to economic ruin, saying he wants them to fail would indicate that he wants economic success. And it's more than an indication because he's stated that point. What am I missing with your personal example? If you believed that W's Iraq war strategy would lead to a failure for America, you wouldn't want those policies to fail in place of an alternative in which you believed in?

And, he did offer an alternative course of action in his WSJ op-ed... which of course would not be accepted, but nevertheless one was offered.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Did you miss the fact that he got a black man elected President 40 years after Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot for advocating equal rights?

He is the one who got Obama elected? I would say that Axelrod and the gullible American people as a whole were bigger contributers to this success.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss If you believed that W's Iraq war strategy would lead to a failure for America, you wouldn't want those policies to fail in place of an alternative in which you believed in?

No, I'd want them to succeed (proving me wrong) for the greater good of the country.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Perhaps I'm wrong... but Carville doesn't have a job in this administration, does he?

You mean, an actual job with a W-2? No, but he is part of the morning conference call with Emanuel and the others to stragegize against an unelected private citizen... exactly the same way he worked with Clinton in his infamous "war room" sessions with Baglea.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss He is the one who got Obama elected? I would say that Axelrod and the gullible American people as a whole were bigger contributers to this success.

Axelrod? Plouffe was the architect of the entire campaign, Axelrod was just a strategist. Axelrod himself credited Plouffe for running the most magnificent campaign in the history of presidential politics.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You mean, an actual job with a W-2? No, but he is part of the morning conference call with Emanuel and the others to stragegize against an unelected private citizen... exactly the same way he worked with Clinton in his infamous "war room" sessions with Baglea.

So in other words, he's a consultant and not part of the Administration?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov No, I'd want them to succeed (proving me wrong) for the greater good of the country.

Start with his premise. All of the supposed theories of the spending bill's potential as laid out by Obama already don't matter... because he rejects the premise from the start that this spending on top of borrowing money we don't have is not the way to economic success.

quote:

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, not the country. 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.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Axelrod? Plouffe was the architect of the entire campaign, Axelrod was just a strategist. Axelrod himself credited Plouffe for running the most magnificent campaign in the history of presidential politics.

Well, if that's true, I can't argue with that line of brilliance, because it truly was an amazing campaign.

quote:

So in other words, he's a consultant and not part of the Administration?

What are you driving at? Yes he is a consultant... so?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Start with his premise. All of the supposed theories of the spending bill's potential as laid out by Obama already don't matter... because he rejects the premise from the start that this spending on top of borrowing money we don't have is not the way to economic success.

Rush needs to take a Macroeconomics course.

The gauntlet has been thrown down... lol. Rush offers Obama a real 1 on 1 debate... no script, no teleprompters, no media minions fronting for Obama. After all, this is what the Left says they wanted on the airwaives, right? More views from both sides "to be fair"... so why not use the stage of the most listened to radio show in the US? He even offered his private jet to pick up Obama and take him back so the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill.

Oh lord. Why doesn't he run for office in 2012 if he wants to debate? I don't care who the President is, they should never feel the need to respond to a challenge from some guy on the radio. And yes, I'd say the same if it was Keith Olbermann challenging George Bush to a mud-wrestling match.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The gauntlet has been thrown down... lol. Rush offers Obama a real 1 on 1 debate... no script, no teleprompters, no media minions fronting for Obama. After all, this is what the Left says they wanted on the airwaives, right? More views from both sides "to be fair"... so why not use the stage of the most listened to radio show in the US? He even offered his private jet to pick up Obama and take him back so the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill.

I hope the President ignores this retarded request completely.

The17sss you would be saying the same thing if it was some Liberal talking head challenging Bush. Enough with the dick measuring bull shit here.

We all know Obama would school his ass anyway and Rush would be forced to call him an n-word.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The gauntlet has been thrown down... lol. Rush offers Obama a real 1 on 1 debate... no script, no teleprompters, no media minions fronting for Obama. After all, this is what the Left says they wanted on the airwaives, right? More views from both sides "to be fair"... so why not use the stage of the most listened to radio show in the US? He even offered his private jet to pick up Obama and take him back so the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill.

Why should Obama lower himself down to debate a talk show host? Rush isn't running for president FFS...

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The gauntlet has been thrown down... lol. Rush offers Obama a real 1 on 1 debate... no script, no teleprompters, no media minions fronting for Obama. After all, this is what the Left says they wanted on the airwaives, right? More views from both sides "to be fair"... so why not use the stage of the most listened to radio show in the US? He even offered his private jet to pick up Obama and take him back so the taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill.

you guys are so stupid you dont even understand why all of this is bad for you

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I hope the President ignores this retarded request completely. The17sss you would be saying the same thing if it was some Liberal talking head challenging Bush. Enough with the dick measuring bull shit here. We all know Obama would school his ass anyway and Rush would be forced to call him an n-word.

LOL... dude, Obama sans teleprompter can't school anyone.

Look, it WOULD be different with Bush because Bush did not look for polling numbers of high negatives on prominent liberal voices and design smear campaigns months in advance, like we just learned Obama and his team has done. Bush never called any liberal talkshow hosts or media personnel out by name and instructed the Democrats and America to stop listening to them if they want to get things done, as Obama has. Bush never went on the attack to destroy character to a media persona from within the white house, like we are seeing now. He is being attacked, and is saying OK, then lets talk.

They want to play by the Saul Alinsky rule for radicals #13 with Rush:

quote:

The opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments and carry out your attack.... One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angles are on one side and all the devils on the other.

This is the rationale for the offer... nicely articulated I should add:

quote:

They are raising my profile as a leader of the party and I'm saying, "Okay, fine, let's debate here." Now, you liberals... are going to have to understand something. You made me the leader. You got what you wanted. Now, stop whining. You people won. You people should finally be happy, sitting on top of the world. I want Obama to debate me on the radio. That's my offer. It's not a negotiation. I mean you ought to lap this up. You ought to think that Obama could wipe the floor with me. He's so good. He's so authentic. He is the best communicator we've ever had. I don't know what you libs are afraid of. By the way, this is a perfect example of an open public debate without the government mandating it. You liberals want that kind of debate on radio. You say you can't get your point of view heard on radio because conservatives dominate, look at my magnificence here, munificence, look at my grace. I am offering the leader of your party and of this country a chance to get on radio where liberals simply can't seem to make it work. You liberals want this kind of debate on radio, you do. You advocate for the Fairness Doctrine. You have claimed I'm the leader of the opposition. I have made a public offer to debate the president on these airwaves. I do so without the government mandating it. You see how fair I am? I myself, Rush Limbaugh, the leader, offering the largest radio audience in the country to a Democrat who happens to be the president of the United States, and this is happening without any legislation on minority ownership rules or local content, or even the Fairness Doctrine. You see, to my good friends the liberals, I am acceding to all of your desires in this. You can come here and defend your administration, and you can kill two birds with one stone: diversity in the media and bipartisanship. You're the leader of your party. You're the president. I'm the leader of your opposition, according to your flunkies. Nothing complicated here.

Plus this:

quote:

You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don't agree with you how wrong we all are. You're a smart guy, Mr. President. You don't need these hacks to front for you. You've debated the best! You've debated Hillary Clinton. You've debated John Edwards. You've debated Joe Biden. You've debated Dennis Kucinich. You've debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don't send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding -- and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He's got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum. I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate.

if the Democrats want to paint the picture that Rush is the "leader of the Republican party", why wouldn't the leader of the Democrat party want dialogue?

if the Donks want to play this game with Rush, and they honestly believe Rush is as doltish and dim-witted as they demonize him as, why wouldn't they want to call Rush's bluff on it?

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