21
   

LIMBAUGH, "I HOPE HE FAILS..."

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:14 pm
@farmerman,
And on the topic of what Limbaugh actually said: I very much prefer his way of stating his position to the passive-aggressive BS I hear from Congress Republicans: "Of course we want him to succeed, but this stimulus, it has to be tax cuts not spending increases ..." To say "I want him to fail if he pursues policies I disapprove of" is a refreshing change.

The American way of politics is to take a stand and fight for it. If there's anything anti-American in this debate about Limbaugh, it's the insistence that the country has to be united behind the president, and that people who are against him are traitors. That's what we've been seeing for eight years, and we really don't need for more years of that.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:23 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas, would that were true, Id heartily agree.

However, what Limbaugh actually said was that he wished the pres to fail and the "if and only if" qualifiers were actually stated a few minutes , Perhaps 10 minutes afterwards. What we saw on the clip with Hannity was actually an attempt to recover damage from the radio statement which was made the day or so previously.
I dont have the radio clips but we heard them and the statement that he wished failure onto Obama stood pretty much alone and was not tempred by what was attributed to him on HAnnity.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:26 pm
@farmerman,
Here's the link to the transcript of what he originally stated.

I agree that that's something quite different from the Hannity thing he did a couple of days later.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:30 pm
@farmerman,
BTW, how can the GOP house members stand there and state that they disapprove of spending increases when the last 8 years were astounding examples of that very tack.?

What huge hootzpah they have to just get done with an administration whose profligate spending was mostly "off the books" but has to be counted in the trillions, and then demand fiscal constraint from the new president. Obama will have to do what needs to be done and I dont think that we can afford to worry bout deficits at this time. We are at a precipice that can mean the end of our own personal fortunes . No GOP can do the "if and only if" game at this juncture, its too damn late . We may watch Britain go down a fiscal singularity this year and become a third world nation. Several others are not far behind.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:33 pm
@old europe,
Thanks OE, its the very point made by the man himselfas he was talking to his producer who was off- air. All that Inannity thing was an attempt at some cleanup.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:37 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I dont have the radio clips but we heard them and the statement that he wished failure onto Obama stood pretty much alone and was not tempred by what was attributed to him on HAnnity.

... and are you sure that the clip you heard was uncut" Are you sure the statement stood alone because that's what he actually said, and not because some editor at NBC or CNN cut out the original context? I'm asking because you don't strike me as a guy who routinely tunes his radio in to Rush Limbaugh's actual show.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:44 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Yo, High Seas. What an incredibly cheap ploy!

Personal invective like "cheap ploy"
tells us only that u lack sufficient powers of articulation
to indicate anything that u allege to be rong with it,
merely indicating that u don t like it.
( Such failures of communication might lead folks to suspect that u r an ignorant redneck. )

It ranks little above calling her "hay, fatso"
( which she certainly is NOT ).





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:47 pm
@Thomas,
Youve been reading my mail. No, I did hear it from another radio station that I do tune to. Its a Baltimore STation that had, under requests from its audience, removed Limbaugh from its playbill in 2006. They have a mix of liberal and ultraconservative radio hosts(I deo listen to all them because they all speak with respect). It was the conservative PM host who played it and it was pretty much as OE had posted from Limbaughs own subsciption newsletter. Limbaugh wasnt running from the attribution, in fact he seemed to celebrate it.
I didnt hear the entire program but heard enough of the section that was played on air and was done with some degree of incredulity . The host in Baltimore is an honorable guy and , as a Conservative, he stands for several things I believe in and one aint proactive administration take-downs.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:55 pm
What's the difference between Limbaugh and the Hindenberg?



Well, one is a fat Nazi gasbag . . .














. . . and the other is just a dirigible.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 01:55 pm
@old europe,
Thanks OE.

So the context is that Limbaugh considers Obama a liberal. He wants liberalism to fail because he considers it bad for the country. Consequently, he wants Obama to fail.

As it happens, I disagree with Limbaugh on the merits of his statement. And as it also happens, Limbaugh did back-pedal in the Hannity interview. But I don't see what all the offense about Limbaugh's original statement is about. If a president pursues an agenda that I think is bad for the country, of course I want him to fail!

Back in the day, I wanted Bush to fail at more things than not. For example, I wanted him to fail at pushing for a war in Iraq; at passing the PATRIOT act; at abusing 9/11 for pushing the US into a state of collective paranoia; at in his irresponsible deficit tax-cutting. The list continues forever, and I am convinced to this day that all these failures were right for me to wish for.

So what on Earth is wrong with Rush Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail in enacting his liberal policy agenda?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:02 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

how about 'hate monger' then?

that's always been my instinctive thought whenever I hear the ****-stirring evilness he consistently spews and has spewed his entire career on the air.

I don't know what Edgar means by 'unAmerican' but I think what Limbaugh does is unhelpful to any sort of rapprochement or unification of America and Americans. He works to divide - constantly - on the basis of race, gender, nationality, political affiliation- whatever little crack he can find to open up between people - he chips and chips away at it until it becomes a yawning crevasse.

He does not sell hate.
He has always been fighting the good fight against collectivism.
Uniting the populace is of little significance and is impossible.
Were the populaces united under Stalin, HItler, Mussolini and Mao ?
I think thay WERE.
Was the Southern populace predominantly united in favor of slavery?
Freedom is more important than unity.

The dispute between freedom-loving American Individualists
against supporters of docility under our own hireling government
in collectivist authoritarianism will continue.





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 02:05 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Personal invective like "cheap ploy"
tells us only that u lack sufficient powers of articulation
to indicate anything that u allege to be rong with it,
merely indicating that u don t like it.


It's apparent to all save an idiot what the cheap ploy was, David. I'm certain that HS knows exactly the cheap ploy she employed.

She could have, had she been consistent and not hypocritical, employed it on any of your postings.

And you, a mensa, can't figure it out. Imagine that.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 03:07 pm
@Thomas,
True dat.

But, otherwise speaking, there's a LOT wrong with Limbaugh.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 03:20 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

If there's anything anti-American in this debate about Limbaugh, it's the insistence that the country has to be united behind the president, and that people who are against him are traitors. That's what we've been seeing for eight years, a




YAY!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 05:23 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
If a president pursues an agenda that I think is bad for the country, of course I want him to fail!


MAybe in quiet water times this wouldnt be offensive. We are in very turbulent times with an economy at risk. To state these wishes on the airwaves to an audience of mouth breathing foamheads is unconscionable. Using the canoe metaphor, limbaugh wants the other side of the canoe to spring a hole and sink, his side will be ok. Oh really?.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 05:38 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
If a president pursues an agenda that I think is bad for the country, of course I want him to fail!


MAybe in quiet water times this wouldnt be offensive. We are in very turbulent times with an economy at risk. To state these wishes on the airwaves to an audience of mouth breathing foamheads is unconscionable. Using the canoe metaphor, limbaugh wants the other side of the canoe to spring a hole and sink, his side will be ok. Oh really?.

It is NOT unconscionable.
It is his effort, which I support with enthusiasm
to avoid having America dragged to the left into collectivist
docility.

It is his effort to have American be a FREE COUNTRY,
despite oboy 's efforts to the contrary, if such there be,
and that is what Rush said.

Patrick Henry woud love it.

That is CONSCIONABLE.





David
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 05:41 pm
@farmerman,
The more and more I hear about this "stimulas package" the more and more I want Obama to fail on his version of how to fix the economy too.

I've noticed that he's softened his administration's position on job creation. During the campaign and the last several months it's been 'my package will create 3-4 million jobs'. Now it's 'my package will either create or save 3-4 million jobs'. How do you measure 'saved jobs'? All he has to do is claim that if he didn't do something, 2 million jobs would have been lost, but since he did something we only lost 1 million. He just saved 1 million jobs. It's a win-win baby!
0 Replies
 
Lambchop
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 05:45 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Oh, and by the way, let me take this rare opportunity to agree with something that Limbaugh said:

Quote:
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.

Quite right.


Quite wrong.

There is $100,000 in the White House budget for redecorating, and from everything I've read, the Obamas will be staying within that budgetary limit. I'd say there's quite a big difference between $100,000 and $1.2 million -- which John Thain (CEO of Merrill Lynch) spent to lavishly decorate his office, even though he knew Merrill Lynch was in deep trouble and the jobs of thousands of people were on the line.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 05:59 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
If a president pursues an agenda that I think is bad for the country, of course I want him to fail!


MAybe in quiet water times this wouldnt be offensive. We are in very turbulent times with an economy at risk. To state these wishes on the airwaves to an audience of mouth breathing foamheads is unconscionable. Using the canoe metaphor, limbaugh wants the other side of the canoe to spring a hole and sink, his side will be ok. Oh really?.

Let 's try it THIS WAY, Farmer:
at the end of the Weimar Republic an economy was at risk.
An articulate, charismatic fellow promised to fix the economy.
Most woud agree that he SUCCEEDED in effecting
a stronger economy than the Weimar Republic had.

Do u think it was worth it ?

If anyone had wished that he 'd fail,
woud that have been unconscionable ?

I wanna hear this. . . .
0 Replies
 
Lambchop
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2009 05:59 pm
@Lambchop,
I'm sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to add something.

We're talking about spending $100k on re-decorating the White House; the home of our President and the place where foreign dignitaries will be visiting. I mean, it's the White House for crying out loud!

And Limbaugh compares that to some CEO jerk spending over a million dollars to decorate his freaking office? When his company is on the verge of going under?

This is proof of how Limbaugh pulls things out of his butt. And he's got a big butt to pull things out of.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 02:24:46