quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Oh, Rush. He's just a celebrity. People who despise him are as hilarious as the people who lap up every little thing he has to say. Clearly, the character he has become falls into the very same camp as even those who would so readily oppose everything he says - the entire "us" vs. "them" dynamic. It's what is truly childish here. Politics are a massive refining process that occurs in the hearts and minds of people, yet most seem to see it as just another outlet to wage war against one another. He's this, she's that, my enemy thinks this, only my friends think that, etc. It's all pretty silly, but it seems like people such as Rush are really setting the rules.

Yes, people like Coulter and O'Reilly, they don't believe half the things they say. The more controversial and the more feathers they ruffle the more airtime their names get. As long as people are talking about them they will get paid.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Oh, I think he's more than just a celebrity, because he uses his fame to actually influence people and spread hatred, much like Coulter. They're both dangerous because they get people to buy into their bullshit.

Fame is influence, so that much is given. And 'hatred' is a word we misuse as though to ascribe elicitations of violent behaviour in people - as though there is some alien and contagious force using people as puppets to exact some base whim. Everyone has the seeds of this 'hatred' planted in them at all times, and they shall never cease to flock beneath the wings of their influences, suckling righteousness from their social organism of choice, antagonists to the things they are duped into polarizing against this day or another. Rush just so happens to be one of these influences, but if he were not there, someone else would fill the position, I promise you.

It really is a good career choice for him though - can he be blamed for that?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Fame is influence, so that much is given. And 'hatred' is a word we misuse as though to ascribe elicitations of violent behaviour in people - as though there is some alien and contagious force using people as puppets to exact some base whim. Everyone has the seeds of this 'hatred' planted in them at all times, and they shall never cease to flock beneath the wings of their influences, suckling righteousness from their social organism of choice, antagonists to the things they are duped into polarizing against this day or another. Rush just so happens to be one of these influences, but if he were not there, someone else would fill the position, I promise you. It really is a good career choice for him though - can he be blamed for that?

My point is only that he is not motivated out of any altruistic sentiments for country or countrymen - he wants to make a dime, and, as you've pointed out quite well, the easiest way to do that is to appeal to people's most base desires. The seed of hate may be planted in everyone, but people like him have made a career in carefully cultivating and directing that hate to serve solely personal aims. I think he is a very dangerous person.

___________________

some of you really need to lay off the pot

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Well, I don't see the big deal, naturally. But really, he doesn't want Obama to fail as a human being, he wants his policies to fail because he doesn't believe in them as Obama has laid them out. It's no different than those of you who disagreed with Bush's policies and hoped they would fail, which essentially would lead to the defeat of the GOP. Except, I think the Left actually was hoping for Bush's failure as a human being as well as a president.

Rush clearly said, "I hope he fails!" He didn't say, "I hope his policies fail." Rush is making an enormous assumption that Obama is actually trying to nationalize everything. I don't believe Obama is trying to nationalize banks, the auto industry, or some of the other industries he claims (i admit obama is trying to nationalize health care, but i agree that he should). Rush clearly wants obama to fail so that in the next election cycle democrats look bad and a republican president would be more likely. Rush categorizes people by labels and provides superficial support for his claims.

Zild captured perfectly my feelings about the Bush years. Although I would go a little further; I couldn't care less, whether it be republican, democrat, or libertarian, who is running the country so long as they are doing a good job.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I hate Bush and never wanted him to be our president and when he was I wanted him out of office, but I never wanted him to fail. I wanted him to do a great job which I don't think he did, but not fail.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Rush clearly said, "I hope he fails!" He didn't say, "I hope his policies fail." Rush is making an enormous assumption that Obama is actually trying to nationalize everything. I don't believe Obama is trying to nationalize banks, the auto industry, or some of the other industries he claims (i admit obama is trying to nationalize health care, but i agree that he should). Rush clearly wants obama to fail so that in the next election cycle democrats look bad and a republican president would be more likely. Rush categorizes people by labels and provides superficial support for his claims.

Here are several examples of how wrong your comment is, for you and the others who hear the MSN or CNN soundbites in their context and run with them. Read for yourself the truth, in the context that he specifically clarifies.

Rush on Jan 16th:

quote:

I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed. If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

Rush on Jan 22nd:

quote:

I don't want Obama to fail; I want the country to succeed! I want Obama's policies to fail. But Obama's failure to implement his policies is good news, the best news possible for this country. That's all I'm saying. There's no way to misunderstand this, but they get to those four words, "I hope he fails," and they ignore everything else I said in front of it. They actually put this in context. It is impossible for anybody at CNN to not understand what I was saying, yet they purposely took it out of context, and then Rick Sanchez, who... I wouldn't trust anything you see this guy do, if you even watch CNN, because he knows full well what was said and what was meant.

Rush on Jan 23rd, to clarify from the pundit sound bites given in the context THEY want it to be in:

quote:

Speaking honestly, I mean look, people are misunderstanding this, Snerdley got a couple calls from some of his buddies last night, "What did your boss mean, he wants the president to fail?" I remain dumbfounded at the high degree, the high level of ignorance that there is out there. But I just want to say, folks, look I support Obama. I just don't support his policies. I support our president, like I have supported all presidents. I just don't support Obama's policies. I don't support the nationalization of the banks, which has happened. I don't support the nationalization of the auto companies. I don't support the nationalization of the mortgage business. I don't like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd running things. And I don't want that to continue. But I support our president. I'm like anybody else, I support the president. I just don't support the policies.

Rush in his interview with Hannity, when asked "do you want Obama to fail?":

quote:

RUSH: I'm so glad you asked me this. I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that very thing. "Well, we want him to succeed," and prominent Republicans! "Yes, we want him to succeed." They have laid down. They have totally. They're drinking the Kool-Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism. They're afraid of being called racists. They're afraid of not having gotten with the program. Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier, "I don't know about this guy." I really don't. I've got my suspicions and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln -- if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he's going to do FDR -- if he's going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal -- why would I want him to succeed? Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda... Look, I think it's already decided: a $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it, because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail." If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

And to your comment that Obama doesn't want to nationalize banks:

quote:

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders -- the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._here_come.html

Last edited by The17sss on Jan-24-2009 at 21:52

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I don't believe Obama is trying to nationalize banks, the auto industry, or some of the other industries he claims (i admit obama is trying to nationalize health care, but i agree that he should).

Here's a graph of the money in preferred stock the government nows owns as part of the bailout, as part of the nationalizaiton process.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resour...Y_20081027.html

Here's the corresponding article digging a little deeper than the last quote from my previous post explaining the nationalization plan:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resour...Y_20081027.html

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail That's the most ignorant middle-schoolish thing I've read in a long time! Any smart conservative/republican, hell even a dumb one, in this country hopes to God that Obama's plans will work. They would love to be proven wrong.

Sunsnail, you're in over your head on this one. Just stop before the hole gets any deeper. If one believes that Obama's policies are bad for the country, than it would make sense for them to want those policies to fail. Simple. You are thinking under the premise that Obama's policies are guaranteed to work, and are inherantly good for the country, period... not even entertaining the possibility that such a line of thinking could be wrong.

And, for shits and giggles, Obama said yesterday that it's time for Republicans to stop listening to Rush if they want to get something done (paraphrasing).... And Rush's response today:

quote:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this. "If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town." To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle. Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle. One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/po...zNmZmM2MzYxMmI=

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Here's a graph of the money in preferred stock the government nows owns as part of the bailout, as part of the nationalizaiton process. http://online.wsj.com/public/resour...Y_20081027.html Here's the corresponding article digging a little deeper than the last quote from my previous post explaining the nationalization plan: http://online.wsj.com/public/resour...Y_20081027.html

during which administration was all that preferred stock purchased?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Here are several examples of how wrong your comment is, for you and the others who hear the MSN or CNN soundbites in their context and run with them. Read for yourself the truth, in the context that he specifically clarifies. Rush on Jan 16th: [/COLOR] Rush on Jan 22nd: Rush on Jan 23rd, to clarify from the pundit sound bites given in the context THEY want it to be in: Rush in his interview with Hannity, when asked "do you want Obama to fail?": And to your comment that Obama doesn't want to nationalize banks: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._here_come.html

if you actually read any of those quotes you see that the man is highly moronic. Calling the new deal the raw deal is ridiculous. Some of our most important legislation in the past 100 years came from the new deal: unemployment benefits, social security, FDIC, SEC, etc.... If those are bad policies, then i'm entirely in favor of enacting more bad policies. Rush is just stupid. I don't through stupid around frequently anymore, but the man is stupid.