Wallace Defends Limbaugh: ‘He Wasn’t Saying I Want The President To Fail’
Wallace Defends Limbaugh: ‘He Wasn’t Saying I Want The President To Fail’
This morning on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace aired a clip of President Obama saying last month, “The only way to solve the great challenges of our time is put aside stale ideology and petty partisanship and embrace what works.” Wallace then asked DNC chair Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA), “Isn’t going after Rush Limbaugh a perfect example of the stale ideology and petty partisanship the president was talking about?”
Kaine noted that “we wouldn’t even be talking about Rush Limbaugh at all had he not said he wanted the president to fail,” later adding, “at a time of crisis in this nation, nobody should be rooting for this president to fail.” However, Wallace took issue with Kaine’s framing of Limbaugh’s quote, and then came to his defense:
WALLACE: I do want to point out though just as a point of information, that Rush Limbaugh says, and I think if you read what he says, he wasn’t saying I want the president to fail. He was saying I want his policies, his agenda to fail and that he disagreed with them and thought they were bad for America.
Watch it:
Apart from the fact that there is little distinction between wanting Obama to fail and wanting his policies to fail (with both ultimately meaning that the country has failed), Limbaugh himself originally said that he hopes Obama, personally, fails:
Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it. [...] “I hope he fails.” And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say.
As Dan Gilgoff, author of U.S. News’s “God & Country” blog pointed out of the above transcript, “In some places, Limbaugh says he wants Obama’s brand of liberalism to fail. In others, though, he says he hopes that Obama fails, without distinguishing between the president and his agenda” which is something that “Limbaugh even acknowledges.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If we’re all the “drive by media”, does that make Limbought the “passed by media”?
March 8th, 2009 at 9:40 amGOP = Grand Old ‘Pologizers
March 8th, 2009 at 9:42 amTypical right wing shill. He’s trying to split hairs, but Limbaugh himself shot him down with the quote provided above, as Dan Gilgoff point out. Wallace is such an ass.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:44 amMorning TPers! I have a new collaboration with a guitarist friend of mine and would appreciate some feedback (good and bad)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os7O77aOK9k
My friend sent me a bunch of different guitar riffs on an mp3 and I rearranged and restructured them into a new song idea. After rearranging it I threw in some sample vocals (No lyrics yet) just to get an idea for final vocals. We also need a lead solo and bass guitar to finish it. Enjoy or not.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:45 am“He wasn’t saying I want the President to fail.”
March 8th, 2009 at 9:49 amHe certainly was, and has done so several times, you liar.
I don’t know anyone personally who follows Limbaugh. Who are the 5 million or so of Americans who listen to him? Even my rabidly Republican son-in-law doesn’t like him. Speechwriter David Frum said about Limbaugh, “If you’re a talk show host and you have five million who listen and there are 50 million who hate you, you make a nice living. If you’re a Republican party, you’re marginalized.”
March 8th, 2009 at 9:49 amPresident Obama will succeed or fail, based on how he does his job…not because of the Opinions of an Unpopular Washed up radio personality
The Disaster at AIG, the Huge Insurance Company, and bailout Recipient is NOT Obama’s fault…but it could be his Downfall.
This is Not good news…
Almost all of the $173 billion that’s passed through AIG may be going to these 20-25 key Wall Street “players.” It’s not the $50 billion that’s been widely reported in the past 24 hours. We know it is at least $80 billion…and growing. And, these good ole’ boys are getting 100 cents on the dollar on assets that are only worth between 20 cents and 60 cents on the dollar now.
and…
It appears that the primary reason the FDIC’s sole mission is being contorted is to provide a massive handout to the hedge fund and sovereign fund sectors
If trillions are stolen from the treasury under Obama’s watch (especially if a penny of it comes at the risk of American’s bank accounts not being safe) then it is OVER for Obama.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/8/7452/30422/848/705961
March 8th, 2009 at 9:50 amHolding up President Obama’s top two economic advisers is one way for Repugnicants to foster failure.
That and President Obama’s nominees toughing it out through the appointment process:
http://www.kget.com/news/political/story/Obama-nominates-three-to-key-Treasury-Department/5zpOsYzGh0yZ32Hd3Wp_HA.cspx
March 8th, 2009 at 9:52 amThe make beleive listeners does not equal votes. That is what “ORushO Been Laden” the head of the American Taliban doesn’t want anyone to realize, and the reason he knows he can never get elected to anything. His numbers are inflated along with the rhetoric, for money. Not policy, not politics, but money, pure and simple.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:54 amA poll from Time magazine on line asks “Is Rush Limbaugh good for the Republican Party?”, 72% of respondents say NO. And in a subsequent poll 40% say Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party.
http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_281.html
Let Chris Wallace and all others of his ilk push Limbaugh, they are only digging a hole from which they may not be able to climb out of anytime in the future.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am—
PigBoy defenders and PigBoy himself are cowards.
They can’t even own up to what they say.
Always trying to duck and dodge.
Wimps.
—
March 8th, 2009 at 11:07 amchris wallace has had the same
snot stuck up his nose for the
last fifteen years. his doctors
have no idea what to do about it.
***
own a happier note last week he
started parting his hair on the left
instead of the right. friends say that
it seems to give chris a “brighter,
sunnier” look. two thumbs up, chris.
:|
March 8th, 2009 at 11:08 amHi Archie B
March 8th, 2009 at 11:17 amSo who is the GOP leader? I have sort of lost track. Who’s the daddy? I sort of think the endless attention to a ship lost at sea is sort of news worthy don’t you?
You have to remember that Walace gets paid for lying and distorting information. He is “good at what he does”, just as Limbaugh lies and distorts but is recognized for being “good at what he does”. If you are good at what you do, it does not matter what you do! If you happen to be good at selling your country down the drain….
March 8th, 2009 at 11:24 amCan anyone imagine the conflagration if someone on the left had publicly stated his/her desire for President Bush or his policies to fail?
March 8th, 2009 at 11:24 amThat’s because your imagination only functions from fear, Arch.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:25 amRing any bells?
Nope.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:27 amWhy give any attention to Faux? They will lie and weasle and distort everything that anyone says. Propaganda TV. When Obama refused to go there, he started getting some national respect.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:28 amI am starting to think that the GOP has no leader and that is why Archie B can’t answer? What do the rest of you think?
Archie also never told me is he ever messed with Forsythia either but I don’t know if we should even speculate on that…
March 8th, 2009 at 11:28 amActually Arch, there was a large explosion just today. The surge hasn’t worked.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:28 amArchie B Says:
Speaking of leaders, I keep hearing that reid and pelosi are constantly fighting and obama is acting more like a grammar school principle than a potus. Funny, nobody in the msm/liberal media will touch it. Hence, the Rush diversions.
I have politely asked this of you before, and I will politely ask it of you again. When you drop by with slightly off-topic remarks like this, would you please provide a link to your sources? From where are you “hearing” this information? (And, please, provide the link, not just the name of your source.)
Thank you.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:28 amCan anyone imagine the conflagration if someone on the left had publicly stated his/her desire for President Bush or his policies to fail?
– Well I am pretty sure they would be labelled Anti-Americans
March 8th, 2009 at 11:30 amArchie B Says:
Which proves my point about the liberal media not reporting certain events.
I heard it from the AP, and McClatchy.
Next.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:31 am“The events for which the Iraq war will be remembered have not yet happened.”
Iraq Ambassador Ryan Clark
March 8th, 2009 at 11:32 ambarfly, go say that to the face of a soldier returning to America. I dare you.
Point one out, and I’ll give him the bad news personally.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:32 amOne of the consequences of spinning is disorientation, loss of bearings, confusion, etc. If you spin yourself too fast, too hard, too long, then you’ve dug yourself into a very deep hole.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:35 amWell done, Chris.
.
Archie,
Have we heard about Martians landing in Utah?
NOPE!
That’s you’re liberal media for you…
… YES?
Um, Archie,
What’s a troll?
.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:35 amIsn’t that what the liberal media has falsely labeled Rush as? See the hypocrisy?
Except Rush actually said “I want Obama to fail.”
That you can’t see the difference says more about you than anyone else, Arch.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:35 amceltic cynic Says:
One of the consequences of spinning is disorientation, loss of bearings,
Arch is definitely running hot, maybe the bearings are shot…
March 8th, 2009 at 11:37 am.
So Archie,
Is it Patriotic to hope your president fails?
I guess only if you’re a (R)ushpublickin’…
… NO?
.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:37 amArchie B Says:
Which proves my point about the liberal media not reporting certain events.
Was this cryptic message directed at me, Archie B? Because if it was, you could have clarified. Otherwise, it’s just another ambiguous statement from you that means nothing.
And the fact that I don’t read every single piece of news on the internets does not “prove” that the “liberal media” (which dwarfs in comparison to the conservative media) is “not reporting certain events.”
So, if the “liberal media” isn’t reporting it, where in the conservative media did you get that information?
March 8th, 2009 at 11:38 amWas this cryptic message directed at me, Archie B?
Me, I think, mentioning the blast in Iraq.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:40 amSaints preserve us!
If Obama’s policies fail, his administration fails.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:46 amIf his administration fails, Limberger will blame Obama for the Great Recession. Duh!
barfly,
That’s why I asked him to clarify. He is one of those trolls who has the extremely annoying and discourteous habit of mentioning something (usually tangentially related to the subject of the post) without providing a link to his sources. And he refuses to do it. To try to make the argument that because we don’t know about whatever he’s talking about is “proof” that the “liberal media” (which is insignificant compared to the conservative media) “isn’t reporting it” is ludicrous. He’s really starting to annoy me with this frequent tactic of his. I’m trying to be polite, but he doesn’t respond to politeness at all.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:47 amThe soldiers know who supports them….the generals are not the troops.
Republicans recieve F’s D’s and a few C’s
Dems get high ratings with nothing below a C
Iraq and Afgan Vets say republicans don’t support the troops at all:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/08/wallace-defends-limbaugh/#comments
So, maybe you should be more careful.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:48 am“The war is lost!”
“The surge can’t work!”
I remember that. The war isn’t lost, but the occupation is.
The surge didn’t work. We can’t pay the enemy not to kill us and then claim victory.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:50 amWho among you wanted Bush to “succeed?”
Not I, said the little red hen…
March 8th, 2009 at 11:51 amBeautiful……thanks for the smile Matt.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:56 amOpen question for the trolls:
Was it the “surge” that worked, or did the “surge” (which took some 6-9 months to implement) merely coincide with the reduction in violence due to the Iraqi successes in ethnic cleansing?
After all, there is a natural reduction in violence following genocide. And genocide occured in Iraq during Bush’s watch.
(sorry for going off-topic)
March 8th, 2009 at 11:57 amSlimeball only said explicitly what every Puke in Congress believes.
They can only regain power if Obama & the Dims fail. There is NO other option.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:57 amSee the hypocrisy?
March 8th, 2009 at 11:59 am– No I don’t unless of course you are suggesting those folks should be apologized to by those that want the posts shifted now that the rules of dodgeball so disadvantaged their totally pummelled asses
tokin librul Says:
Who among you wanted Bush to “succeed?”
Depends. I wanted him to go after Bin Laden, and for about the first week, I thought it might be possible.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pmNo one wanted bush’s economic policies to fail. We predicted they would but we hoped we were wrong and that he would not be allowed to do what he did.
pridicting and wishing, two different things.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pmA critical point the wingnuts never acknowledge, BnF, nor do they acknowledge that the “Anbar Awakening” which preceded the Surge™ by several months, was helped along by cash payments to warlords.
It wasn’t more troops on the ground that made the difference, although that did help; it was a shift in strategy in the hinterlands that the brass in Baghdad resisted until it was proven effective.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:02 pmBuy your copy today. Eventually the author will be a U.S. Senator:
Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot (Paperback)
March 8th, 2009 at 12:03 pmI rooted for Bush to succeed at taking out Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks. Big time. Didn’t quite work out, though, Bush had other priorities.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:03 pmI’m with you, Fred.
I would much prefer to admit I was wrong about Bush’s policies, and enjoyed a stable and prosperous economy along with the rest of my fellow citizens.
But we weren’t wrong about Bush’s policies.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pmAmazing the way the MSM protects Limbaugh.
It is fine for Limbaugh to call all Dems and liberals horrible names all day any day. But for Dems to push back, that is them being “partisaned”.
And when Obama put bipartinsanship front & center on the stim bill, what happened? The GOP fell right back to partisaned hacks. Yet this is the DEMS, Fox will tell you.
And Rush did say he wants OBAMA to fail.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pmNo one wanted bush’s economic policies to fail.
Bush had economic policies?
March 8th, 2009 at 12:06 pmAin’t no flying monkies goin’ ta’ land, guys, when the shotgun barrels are as thick as the reeds.
I’m gonna go try a different pond…
March 8th, 2009 at 12:09 pmIt’s really sad that a professional commentator (I hesitate to label him a “journalist”) like Chris Wallace can’t recognize that hoping for the failure of policies is no different than hoping for the Presidents personal failure, and that both are tantamount to hoping for the failure of the nation’s economy.
It’s simple, really:
Republicans want to get back into power (to finish the job, presumably).
Obama’s popularity stands in the way. As president, if the economy recovers, Obama will get the credit. That’s the way it works. It’s sorta fair, sorta not. But that’s the way it is.
Therefore, Limbaugh and the rest of the Republicans he leads must hope the economy does NOT improve, as that’s their only hope of regaining political relevance.
THUS it must be concluded that Limbaugh hopes the economy tanks. Whether he couches that in terms ideological or strategic makes no difference. It’s the logical conclusion, and Limbaugh’s own flailing rhetoric supports it.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:11 pmBut the protection money we’ve paid to those warlords surely has no chance of coming back to haunt us, right? I defy anyone to think of a way in which our giving lots of cash to Iraqi warlords could have any unexpected, long-term, negative drawbacks.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:14 pmDammit! You’re right, barfly. We’ll have to settle back and wait. Maybe throw out some bait –
Al Gore was right!
If we’d all listened to Jimmy Carter we wouldn’t need the Middle East today!
BILL CLINTON!
(okay, so it’s the troll-hunting equivalent of spreading corn on the pond but so what? They’re only trolls…)
March 8th, 2009 at 12:15 pmTo make matters worse, Republicans will do everything they possibly can to prevent President Obama from implementing his policies – everything they can do dilute or destroy his efforts to fix the mess Bush left behind. If they succeed, they will blame President Obama for the “failure” of his presidency.
One can only hope the electorate is wise enough to not re-elect any Republican from here on out.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:15 pmRush did said that he wanted Obama to fail more than twice and was echoed from some of the congress.
Obama fails so does the country. These people are sick!
March 8th, 2009 at 12:16 pmtokin librul Says:
Who among you wanted Bush to “succeed?”
Not I, said the little red hen…
The difference between a republican and a democrat:
March 8th, 2009 at 12:17 pmWe wanted bush to succeed, we just didn’t think he would
They want President Obama to fail, and are afraid he won’t…
The Repubs strongest hand is “No.” They don’t have solutions and are now relying on non-elected talkers to establish policy for them. Election time will be interesting. They better have more than, “We attempted to stop Obama from fixing America so vote for us.”
March 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pmI heard that Mike Wallace has ordered a cylindrical casket so it will be easier to spin in his grave over the ridiculous things that will continue to come out of his son’s mouth once he is dead…
March 8th, 2009 at 12:19 pmArchie B has never talked to a OIF vet, obviously. If he had he’d know that is a huge range of opinions on bush’s crusade. Many of the one’s I’ve talked to are very upset over what they were put through.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm‘He didn’t really say that, he said…er…um he meant…I think what he was pointing out…’
With all the time they spend in front of cameras babbling you would think someone would have pointed out by now that those taped recordings actually get saved.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:21 pmThis is the de-facto leader of the Republican Party:
Those who proudly call themselves Dittoheads are following someone who funked out of college. No wonder they were attracted to vote for Bush (Mr. C average) and McCain (Mr. Just-Barely-Passing).
And now, “He Who Funked Out of College” commands obeisance from the leaders of the Republican Party: Senators, Representatives, and Conservative Commentators all bow before him.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:25 pmTrollspotter says:
But the protection money we’ve paid to those warlords surely has no chance of coming back to haunt us, right? I defy anyone to think of a way in which our giving lots of cash to Iraqi warlords could have any unexpected, long-term, negative drawbacks.
Yeah, I mean, reagan and bush 1 gave all that money to the mujhedden in Afghanistan back in the 80’s, the CIA trained them in insurgency tactics, republicans taught them how to make IED’s, and gave this young up and comer Osama,,,something all kinds of cash. That never came back to haunt us…
March 8th, 2009 at 12:26 pmHow soon before wallace has to apologize?
March 8th, 2009 at 12:26 pmp.s. Hat tip to WaltTheMan over at TheZoo for pointing me the direction of my previous post.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:28 pmLimbaugh said: “I hope he fails”.
The confusion comes here: Progressives feel that the country’s success is directly correlated to Obama’s success in passing his progressive agenda. That’s understandable. They believe progressive ideas are best for the country.
So, naturally, when progressives hear Limbaugh say that he wants Obama to fail, they also assume that Limbaugh is calling for the country to fail. Because he is so consumed with seeing progressives fail, that he would rather see the country fail than see progressives succeed.
There lies the difference of opinion.
Conservatives, like Limbaugh, don’t think that Obama’s success and the success of the country are correlated. To the contrary, Limbaugh and other conservatives believe that if Obama is successful in promoting what they see as socialist polices, that it would actually harm the country. Conservatives believe that Obama success only means traveling farther down the wrong road.
Progressives feel that supporting Obama is patriotic by by extention, supporting the country.
And conservatives feel that opposing Obama’s push towards what they see as damaging socialist policies, is patriotic and best for the country in the long run.
So, an attempt to discredit people based on a false measure of patriotism (much like what happened to Iraq War protestors) is occurring.
Eventually, people will again remember that it is a battle of competing ideas that has nothing to do with who loves the country more.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:33 pmWallace:..”he wasn’t saying I want the president to fail. He was saying I want his policies, his agenda to fail and that he disagreed with them and thought they were bad for America”.
Always the Republican spin. Rush definitely stated that he wanted Obama to fail; he later added the equivocations. Well the un-American, traitorous words were said. Clearly the failed party would rather have Obama fail then have him succeed. Parse that. Let America go down so they can be proved right. The point is, there is no separating Obama’s actions from America’s recovery, growth and success. If the policies fail, America follows.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:34 pmTawdry Says:
I don’t know anyone personally who follows Limbaugh. Who are the 5 million or so of Americans who listen to him?
I think they are mostly in the south and the heartland. I have asked every single Republican’t I know what they think about Limbaugh and most just shudder. One guy did say that he used to listen to Limbaugh but he can’t any longer because he thinks that he is nuts.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:38 pmAAAAchie? Gloria tells me you were hiding in her closet again last night, I wish you wouldn’t do that, it makes her clothes all sticky.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:41 pmbackup Says:
So, naturally, when progressives hear Limbaugh say that he wants Obama to fail, they also assume that Limbaugh is calling for the country to fail. Because he is so consumed with seeing progressives fail, that he would rather see the country fail than see progressives succeed.
There lies the difference of opinion.
Sorry B-Cup but there is no “difference of opinion”. If the policies that President Obama is trying to enact fail, so will the nation. That is a FACT. The policies your party is so fond of is what has caused this country to fail in the first place. It confuses me how people like you can think that continuing the same failed policies will somehow bring us out of the mess you made of this country. You do remember that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again hoping for a different outcome. The problem with this country now is that you and yours are all INSANE.
You had your chance, and now it’s our chance. At least we have a President now who is willing to take responsibility for the policies he is implementing and the possibility they may fail. Unlike you and your president who are not responsible for anything that has gone wrong with this country.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:43 pmPoint one, Arch, you don’t really understand the nature of national politics, do you? You seem to believe that most people think like you do: “if it’s good, Republicans did it. If it’s bad, Democrats did it.” Doesn’t work that way.
And two, if the bail-outs were gonna save the economy, shouldn’t we have seen some improvement by now?
March 8th, 2009 at 12:43 pmThanks for your concern, b-cup.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:45 pmAAAAAchice, the Jeffersons just called again, they want you to wear your pants when you take the ashcans out to the street, they say your beer gut doesn’t quite cover the pee stains on your undies.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:45 pmArchie B Says:
Obama’s popularity stands in the way. As president, if the economy recovers, Obama will get the credit.
—————-
Really? I believe Bush was the one who implemented the “bail-outs.” The credit will go to him.
The only “bail outs” that Bush was responsible for was the $600 tax rebate that did nothing to help our economy. The other “bail out” was a bi-partisan effort between the Republicant’s and the Democrats. The only thing that Bush really had to do with it was to GIVE AWAY half of the funds to wall street with zero strings attached and zero oversight.
So, you are wrong. The country will not credit Bush if the economy rights itself. They all know who got us into this mess and they all know that his dithering, and refusing to even call it a recession for at least a year before he admitted it, only made things much worse.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:46 pmBNF. I understand your point about Limbaugh dropping out of college. This is from Einstein’s wikipedia:
Of course, Limbaugh is not Einstein, but examples abound of people that either didn’t do well at formal education or chose a specialization over continuing education; that have done quite well.
Bill Gates dropped out of college:
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/6624-bill-gates-the-richest-drop-out-in-the-world-/
And Edison had only a few months of formal education:
http://www.answers.com/topic/is-it-true-that-edison-had-no-formal-education
I get your point about Limbaugh. I’m just not sure how relevant it is.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:49 pmbackup Says:
I’m going to ignore your long winded rationalization and pose a question for you instead. If they continue to play this hand are they not guilty of A PRE-RECESSION MINDSET
In other words, are they not saying that Obama is wrong and they were right, despite the facts on the ground.
Isn’t that kinda dumb, well, really dumb?
Aren’t they really just taking a huge gamble with everything we hold dear at stake? Is that ethical?
If the GOP is wrong, and the economy begins to show signs of life, the resistance will be easily framed as reflexive obstructionism, the last gasp of an intellectually bankrupt party.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090226/pl_politico/19346
March 8th, 2009 at 12:50 pmHey, you’re the one who as much as claimed the bail-outs were gonna save the economy and that Bush would get the credit.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:50 pmThis is post 80:
Archie B Says:
And two, if the bail-outs were gonna save the economy, shouldn’t we have seen some improvement by now?
—————
Take it up with obama.
This is post 89:
Archie B Says:
Obama’s popularity stands in the way. As president, if the economy recovers, Obama will get the credit.
—————-
Really? I believe Bush was the one who implemented the “bail-outs.” The credit will go to him.
This is why it is a waste of time to try to reason with a troll. Mock it, tease it, laugh at it, just don’t expect to reason with it.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pmHey archie, look directly above your last post and explain those two statements. meathead.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pmralph. The point is this. Formal education does not necessarily equate to success or contribution.
That’s all.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pmB-cup, Einstein produced paradigm-shifting theories of physics which have demonstrated their usefulness for almost a century.
Bill Gates built computer systems and a massively powerful global corporation.
All Limbaugh has done is talk. If his talk is examined with an academic eye, it is soon revealed as a lot of hot air, supported by prejudice rather than fact (primarily, the prejudice that conservative = good and liberal = bad) and accessorized with juvenile invective delivered with an absurd pomposity.
But you keep on defending El Rushbo. You’re doing a bang-up job.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pmBilbo. Here is the heart of the difference.
Imagine the hypothetical in which Sarah Palin is somehow the President. And progressives are opposing her positions on abortion, energy policy, etc. (rightfully so).
And when they raise their opposition, conservatives tell them, “If the policies that President Palin is trying to enact fail, so will the nation”.
That wouldn’t make sense to you or other progressives, and neither does the correlation of Obama’s success with the success of the nation make sense to those that currently disagree with the President.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pmNot that he would advise others to do the same.
Bill Gates: “Higher education is the best possible path for promoting equality and improving lives here in America.”
March 8th, 2009 at 12:59 pmAbove, in post 80. At 12:36.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pmRight on cue! A massive dose O’ Hypocrisy!
– No see if you are man enough to set the hook and land the fish….
I am way sort of doubting it but that is just me
March 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pmRalph, I already pointed that out to Archie (post 96)
March 8th, 2009 at 1:07 pmeither he’s to stupid to read his own words or he’s too much of a coward to admit he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Maybe Archie b is a good name for this troll after all. He’s an ignorant right wing blowhard who thinks that something is true because he thinks it is.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:07 pmOh, I see, Arch. You weren’t claiming bail-outs were going to save the economy.
You just meant that if the economy were to be saved, it would be the bailouts that did it, and Bush would get the credit.
Key distinction, to be sure.
Still a stupid argument, but it’s a different stupid argument than the one I first attributed to you.
I guess if that’s all you got, you want to keep your details straight.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:09 pmOkay, I’m imagining this. Now I’m imagining what Rush Limbaugh is saying to the progressive opposition. In my head, it’s sounding something like: “Shut up! Just shut up! Just go away! Bury yourselves in your rat holes and don’t come out until you win an election!”
Weird.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pmChris, your pa must be spinning right now, knowing what a little cracksucker he brought into the world.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pmLimbaugh should not be considered the leadership of a national party. It’s only being considered because of the lack of any other Republican figure that fits the bill. Limbaugh is a partisan entertainer, that shares much in common with someone like Michael Moore. Moore is also a partisan entertainer, and a college drop out:
March 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
He isn’t? Why did so many conservatives tell me he is?
March 8th, 2009 at 1:18 pmTrollspotter. They were wrong, just as those that today attribute Limbaugh’s position as unpatriotic.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pmbackup
So you don’t respond to questions. Definition of a troll, trying to control the conversation instead of discussing.
Please address my questions backup….
March 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pmmy bad on the Moore info. I forgot to close the blockquote after (wikipedia).
March 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pmI don’t recall Moore ever saying he hopes bush fails.
Stop defending rush and answer the questions.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:23 pmMaybe, as a conservative, you should start a movement to apologize to Michael Moore for so many conservatives wrongly calling him unpatriotic. Apologize loudly, earnestly, profusely. That might go a ways in change peoples’ minds about Limbaugh’s patriotism, don’t you think?
March 8th, 2009 at 1:23 pmWhat makes me a “fringe leftist?” Most Americans approve of President Obama and disapprove of Rush Limbaugh. I’m part of that majority.
You are part of the fringe.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pmFred. I looked at you question and really don’t understand what you’re asking.
It’s not just Limbaugh, others are asking questions about Obama’s plans being overly ambitious in light of the conditions he has inherited.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20090307/The.Obama.Economy.Analysis/
Rephrase your question, and I’ll think about it.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pmTrollspotter, you picked up on a good example of b-cup’s dishonest argumentation. He presents Sarah Palin’s position on abortion as a comparison to Obama struggling to right a dangerously listing economy.
First of all, b-cup tries the by-now familiar gambit of all Rush apologists, and that is to shift the argument to “Rush hopes Obama fails to implement his policies”. That tactic is a crock of shit. It implies that, should Obama succeed in implementing his policies, Rush would then be all for them succeeding.
Once that absurdity is recognized, it renders his Sarah Palin hypothesis equally silly. As if abortion policy could somehow have a impact on the nation’s condition comparable to a decisive response to an economic crisis unparalleled in seventy or eighty years.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pmLand it? It’s already on the grill!
March 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm–
I can’t really see that happening unless it is one of those silly assed fresh water fish or maybe you dip netted yourself a farmed fish. No way can you hold a knife and generate a pretty high yield cut
It’s relevant because it has become a pattern. They follow illiterate, uneducated know it alls.
answer my question at 93 and stop defending rush.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pmBut HE IS, b-cup. He is. By elected Republicans.
The difference is, nobody in the Democratic Party takes Moore seriously as a policy advisor. Nobody in the media takes Moore seriously as a liberal authority. 24-hour “news” networks don’t give Michael Moore a national forum for hour-plus-long speeches to partisan conventions.
Your comparison again sinks under the weight of its own absurdity.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pmAnd that reason would be… ?
March 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pmIf the republicans continue to press for the same philiosopies that they held dear in the previous decade and continue to follow rush are they not guilty of A PRE-RECESSION MINDSET
In other words, are they not saying that Obama is wrong and they were right, despite the facts on the ground.
It’s really pretty easy to understand compared to your warped rationalizations that rush is a patriot.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:33 pmYou’re right, I’m now trying to imagine the existential threat to American hegemony that would be solved by Sarah Palin banning abortion. Hmm. Just not seeing it.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pmYou’re an idiot, b-cup. Others, including Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman are suggesting stridently that obama’s plans are not ambitious enough.
Limbaugh is NOT “asking questions about Obama’s plans being overly ambitious in light of the conditions he has inherited”.
Limbaugh is claiming Obama’s plans are “socialist” and he wants them to fail for that reason.
More dishonest crap from b-cup.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pmralph. you’re right here. Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because he believes his plans are socialist. Limbaugh opposes socialism. He believes that socialism would be bad for the country. And he believes that his opposition is patriotic.
That’s as legitimate (or patriotic) as Moore working to stop Bush policies.
The difference is ideology.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pmWatch the movie, The Insider, and you will see that the smarmy, idiotic, biased Wallace comes by it naturally. His dad was a little shit too, who tried to run out on showing the evidence that the tobacco companies KNEW about it causing cancer and LIED about it.
Perhaps those same giant corporations own the entire Wallace family, eh?
March 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pmHere’s a cartoon perfectly describing the Republican party sucking up to Limbaugh.
Maybe Chris would like to get in that line?
March 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pmbackup crabwalks, moonwalks…..every twist and turn….but we have pinned the tail on this hyena…….
March 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pmSo basically, you’re saying that Limbaugh wants Americans to suffer more because he doesn’t want ’socialism” to succeed.
He doesn’t want Obama to succeed. Just admit that. He wants Obama to fail.
Despite your reluctance to admit this simple fact, Rush wants the president to fail. In a national crisis.
Own up to it.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pmStop defending rush backup. Just stop defending the traitorous bastard. Stop it.
If you won’t answer our questions then find something not quite so ridiculous to harp on.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:52 pmbackup, I’m really hoping you’ll answer the question I raised in #121.
Since you believe it was “wrong” of conservatives to demonize Michael Moore and it was “wrong” to attack the patriotism of liberals simply because they didn’t see eye to eye with Bush, why aren’t you and like-minded conservatives now asking your fellow Americans for forgiveness?
With the energy you put in to posting here, you could instead start a campaign getting conservatives across the nation to explain why they did what they did, why it was wrong, how deeply sorry they are for their actions, and how they hope Americans will come to forgive them in time.
Wouldn’t that go a long way to help your argument that it’s wrong to call Limbaugh’s position unpatriotic? Or is what’s good for the goose not good for the gander?
March 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pmFAUX and Chris Wallace make no bones about being propagandists for the reichwingnut fascists.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pmFred. I think what you are getting at is that Republicans want to keep trying more of the same that got us into this mess. And that they should realize that their policies have failed and that trying to continue them, would only result in more failure.
The counter would be something like this: The economy is in bad shape, but it would be worse or will be worse, if we raise taxes and spend even more money.
I assume that you disagree with that. I understand. But, there is a difference between being wrong and being unpatriotic.
Progressives have a very strong case that Limbaugh doesn’t know what he is talking about. But, that is very different than charging that he would be willing to see the country fail, only to vindicate his ideology.
If Progressives are really different and better, they should continue to attack Limbaugh and others on their beliefs. But, the tag of unpatriotic, is as inaccurate today as it was when conservatives used it to quell opposition to the war.
If you want to argue tit for tat, I can’t argue against that. But, if progressives are better, they should give up the patriotism attacks in regards to opposition.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pm“He wasn’t saying I want the President to fail.”
It was out there for all to see and hear:
How much kool aid will it take for fox viewers not to see this lie?
March 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pmTHIS IS WHAT LIMBAUGH HAS SAID.
THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE ADMITTED HE SAID.
THERE IS NO GRAY AREA HERE.
“Limbaugh wants Obama to fail because he believes his plans are socialist. Limbaugh opposes socialism. He believes that socialism would be bad for the country.”
Therefore LImbaugh WANTS OBAMA TO FAIL BECAUSE OF IDEOLOGY.
He’s not saying “I believe Obama’s policies will fail.’ He’s saying ‘I WANT HIM TO FAIL”.
In a crisis.
As always with b-cup I am reminded of Upton Sinclair’s great quote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. “
The only question I have is what kind of salary of b-cup’s depends on him not understanding this simple truth — that Limbaugh wants Obama to fail?
March 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pmBack this bullshit up. What do you base your statement on? The reality is that those are what got us here, no?
March 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pmTrollspotter. You’ve got a good point. I spent some time trying to find the exchange, but I can’t find it. But, a year or two ago, I apologized to barfly (and progressives in general) for how conservatives questioned the patriotism of those that opposed the war. At the time, I did not recall personally questioning anyone’s patriotism, but I do recall, coming to TP with a message of ‘divided we fail’ to argue for support of the war (much like the arguments for support of Obama today). But, in my apology, I conceded that if was wrong for conservatives to question the patriotism of those that opposed the war.
Making it a lifelong quest to right that wrong? There have been an infinite amount of wrongs-to-be-righted that I could take on. But, I’m afraid that would detract from my efforts here to enlighten you. ; )
March 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pmAnother good quote from Sinclair:
The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.
Letter to Norman Thomas, 1950
March 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pmThat is your suggestion is what got us here…
March 8th, 2009 at 2:08 pmFred. There are people that believe it. Not just Limbaugh.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20090307/The.Obama.Economy.Analysis/
March 8th, 2009 at 2:08 pmYour little winky-face emoticon notwithstanding, I’m thinking the energy spent in those efforts may be better utilized elsewhere. Perhaps you could take up model train building.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pmThat’s it exactly Ralph. In a discussion with my pharmacist who comes from a conservative family he told me that exact thing when talking about health care.
We all want socialized medicine it’s just that the right has given the word social such an evil tinge that people shy away from anything with the word in it. Why do you think rush uses it so much.
At the same time, people no longer spit on the ground in front of me when they hear the word liberal so it could be a bad sign for the right. I hope so.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pmralph. Limbaugh does want Obama to fail. To fail to enact socialist policy that he sees as bad for the country.
I do not disagree with you.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pmralph the wonder llama Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
backup Says:
Fred. There are people that believe it. Not just Limbaugh.
http://www.comcast.net/ articles/ news-politics/ 20090307/ The.Obama.Economy.Analysis/
You fu(king a$$hole. I just pointed out how the article you present is NOT saying the same thing Limbaugh is saying.
You acknowledged my point.
And here you are tossing the same frickn’ article into the debate again. Your dishonesty permeates everything you post here.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pmThose same people thought tax cuts for the rich would stimulate the economy, they were wrong.
Those same people thought deregulation would usher in a new era of prosperity, they were wrong.
Tell me again why I should listen to them? Oh yeah, they were wrong then but somehow, magically, they are right now. Where the hell were they when the damage was being done?
So far you have not backed up your statement at all. Support this statement in some substantial way. Don’t give me a link to some right wing economist and say “he says so”
describe the mechanics of your statement. I’ll wait.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pmBut, a year or two ago, I apologized to barfly (and progressives in general) for how conservatives questioned the patriotism of those that opposed the war. At the time, I did not recall personally questioning anyone’s patriotism, but I do recall, coming to TP with a message of ‘divided we fail’ to argue for support of the war (much like the arguments for support of Obama today). But, in my apology, I conceded that if was wrong for conservatives to question the patriotism of those that opposed the war.
To be fair, yes he did finally acknowledge that we were derserving of a general apology from conservatives, for past treatment.
If you’ll remember, you finally earned a “good doggy!” from me, as well.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:17 pmYou dishonest shit. You try AGAIN to limit the scope of Limbaugh’s opposition.
Are you saying by implication that if Obama successfully implements the policies that Limbaugh considers “socialist”, that Limbaugh will then support them?
Is that the argument you’re trying to make when you insist that Limbaugh’s hope is that Obama “fails to enact socialist policy”?
March 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pmNot the time to get mad Ralph, although I understand. Let’s see if cappy can defend his allegation that tax cuts will turn the economy around.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pmArchie B Says:
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says
The only “bail outs” that Bush was responsible for was the $600 tax rebate that did nothing to help our economy.
So, you are wrong.
——————
US President George W. Bush, saying “our entire economy is in danger,” urged Congress to approve his administration’s $700 billion bailout proposal.
Because he urged congress to approve it didn’t make it “his”. Also, it had to be “his administration’s” because he was President. No matter how you spin it, creating and passing the TARP act was a bipartisan effort.
Also, you are going off the reservation here. The current GOP spin is that it was the Democrats bailout plan.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pmralph. Limbaugh does want Obama to fail. To fail to enact socialist policy that he sees as bad for the country.
As opposed to socialist policy that benefits him? Let’s be honest; Limbaugh rarely rails against other “socialist” practices, that have served our country for decades, because they support one section or another of his listening demographic.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:21 pmbackup Says:
If the policies that President Obama is trying to enact fail, so will the nation.
Bilbo. Here is the heart of the difference.
Imagine the hypothetical in which Sarah Palin is somehow the President. And progressives are opposing her positions on abortion, energy policy, etc. (rightfully so).
And when they raise their opposition, conservatives tell them, “If the policies that President Palin is trying to enact fail, so will the nation”.
God you are a moron. How is abortion or energy policies going to cause our country to fail? Limpball and the Republicant’s are opposing President Obama’s policies to try to bring our country back from the financial abyss. If it fails we all fail.
You don’t do nuance very well, do you.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm135 Zooey
Love the cartoon.
Viagra and Oxy-C needs to be spilling out of his pockets along with a return ticket from the Dominion Republic.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pmCome on backup, you ran your mouth. Now show us how this works.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pmbackup Says:
that Limbaugh wants Obama to fail?
ralph. Limbaugh does want Obama to fail. To fail to enact socialist policy that he sees as bad for the country.
So tell us, genius, what is Limpballs and the Republican’t party going to do if President Obama’s “socialist” policies work and our economy recovers? Is he going to apologize for wishing that Obama’s fiscal policies fail (and thereby our country fails)?
March 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pmI’ve got to run some errands, but I’ll take a stab at it before I leave. Here’s from the link:
From this article, not just Limbaugh, but others question whether Obama’s agenda will prolong the recession. To prolong the recession would be bad for the country.
The people that question Obama are not unpatriotic. They just don’t share the confidence that Obama’s agenda will be good for the economy. What’s not good for the economy is, in general, not good for the country.
Limbaugh believes that Obama’s plans are not good for the country. Others are less divisive, but they share the skeptism that Obama’s plans will be beneficial.
I don’t understand why my link doesn’t apply. Or how it’s dishonest.
But, I’ll be back later to check.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pmbackup, please explain how taxing exxon who pays no taxes and draws huge welfare in the form of subsidies will hurt our economy?
remember, they recorded record profits last several quarters and yet they went from 120,000 employees in 05 to 80,000 this year so that profit aint producing any jobs….
March 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pmFortunately for us and unfortunately for you B-Cup, the people in this country disagree with you and the Republicant’s.
From the recent WSJ/NBC poll:
How likely do you think it is that Barack Obama will bring real change in direction to the country?
Very likely to bring real change in direction …………43
Fairly likely to bring real change in direction ……….18
Just somewhat likely to bring real change in direction…,20
Not that likely to bring real change in direction ……..17
Not sure ………………………………………….2
And how confident are you that Barack Obama has the right set of goals and policies to be president of the United States
March 8th, 2009 at 2:27 pmExtremely confident …………..31
Quite confident ………………23
Only somewhat confident ……….26
Not at all confident ………….19
Not sure ……………………..1
Thanks for the reply, and I’ll take you at your word that you personally conceded the wrongness of attacking liberals’ patriotism to barfly in the post that you can’t find.
For the sake of argument, let’s equate Rush with Moore. I’m not convinced that’s an accurate comparison, but let’s try it out for now.
You are espousing a point of view that is ridiculously hypocritical. You want progressives to respect the patriotism of Rush and other conservatives after conservatives “wrongly” (to use your word) lambasted and demonized liberals for years.
Why should we? By what right do you ask us to do this?
Until a genuine, heartfelt apology comes from the conservative base, don’t progressives have every right to do to you exactly what you did to us? Why should liberals be held to a higher standard?
Do you think it’s right or moral for conservatives to bully their fellow Americans while in the majority, then cry foul when the tables are turned?
How do you hope to “enlighten” your fellow Americans with conservatives taking such a cynical, hypocritical, and–some would say–deeply immoral position?
March 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pmpoor backup
cannot seem to understand FAILED ideology vs new ideology to save us from the FAILED ideology…..
it’s all just “ideology” to him eh?
LOL
40 years+ going back to nixon’s criminal regime=FAILED neocon ideology of deregulating corporations, breaking working American’s unions, privatizing our govt of, by for the PEOPLE
back up just doesn’t get it does he?
March 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pmLIMBAUGH IS NOT SAYING “Obama’s agenda will prolong the recession”.
LIMBAUGH IS SAYING IT IS SOCIALIST AND THAT IS WHY HE WANTS IT TO FAIL..
YOUR DISHONEST AND REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO CORRELATE THE TWO POINTS OF VIEW ARE PREDICTABLE BUT PATHETIC.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:34 pmbackup runs with tail tucked firmly between his hind legs.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:38 pmOne thing that the back-ups refuse to understand, when talking about “income taxes,” is that the rich already get a huge tax break, supposedly so they will invest their money in US finance/job creation: the cap on SSI earnings. I seem to remember one of the arguments at the time was that if we didn’t offer this shelter to their incomes, the affluent would move their assets off-shore, and deprive our economy of needed capital. Since that tax-giveaway has been going on for decades with very little to show for it, given the current circumstances, any additional taxes the affluent might be asked to pay should actually be regarded as back-taxes, on all the job creation that never happened, as a result of limiting the payroll taxes on upper-income individuals.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:38 pmbackup Says:
that Limbaugh wants Obama to fail?
ralph. Limbaugh does want Obama to fail. To fail to enact socialist policy that he sees as bad for the country.
Sorry… but the damage done by the phrase I want Obama to fail can not be un spun, dressed up or made into something it is not. Can not be done.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pmB-cup, i will take Fred’s advice and try to release my anger at your repeated inability to recognize simple facts.
You don;t understand why the article you link to doesn’t apply. Let me try to explain it to you calmly.
You associate Limbaugh’s entirely ideologically-driven opposition with the more-or-less responsible concerns expressed in the article. You present the article as evidence that “others besides Limbaugh” feel the same way he does. Yet nowhere in the article is the word “socialism” mentioned as a threat. The concerns listed are all over the map, including “Some Democrats, worried over where Obama is headed, are suggesting he has yet to match his call for “bold action and big ideas” with deeds.”
And certain clues lead one to be suspect of the ideological bias of the reporter who pens sentences like this:
Although the administration likes to say it “inherited” the recession and trillion-dollar deficits, the economic wreckage has worsened on Obama’s still-young watch.
Sounds pretty right-wing to me — the quotation marks around “inherited” as if that’s not the case, the troll-like observation that the economy has gotten worse “on his watch”, even though that the economy would worsen was roundly predicted.
All in all, this article hardly pairs with your defense of Limbaugh. And NO ONE is quoted in the article as hoping Obama’s policies will fail.
March 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pmBackup, what part of the pharse “I WANT OBAMA TO FAIL” don’t you understand? Limbaugh said it. We know what he meant by it. What’s your problem?
March 8th, 2009 at 2:53 pmHe wasn’t saying “I want Obama to fail”.. He was saying “I want Obama to fail”. There.. See the difference?… :D
March 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pmbarfly Says:
One thing that the back-ups refuse to understand, when talking about “income taxes,” is that the rich already get a huge tax break, supposedly so they will invest their money in US finance/job creation: the cap on SSI earnings.
Another thing he fails to acknowledge is that the rich are not paying their fair share of income taxes. According to Forbes (not exactly a liberal publication), the top 400 wage earners in the US pay an average of 17% in taxes. That’s way less than you and I are paying.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html
We also need to take into account the rich who don’t pay any taxes at all because they hide their money in off-shore tax shelters or put it in Swiss banks.
Then there’s the inconvenient truth that 66% of all corporations pay no income taxes.
http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/gao-reports-most-american-corporations-pay-no-tax
So b-cup, what do you think about this? Don’t you think if the rich paid their fair share of taxes and the corporations paid their fair share of taxes, that this country might not be in better shape than it is now?
March 8th, 2009 at 3:10 pmFred Says:
backup runs with tail tucked firmly between his hind legs.
I think you are right. He was taking a pretty good licking and split. How brave of you b-cup.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pmralph, I think we should stop letting backup dominate the direction of the discussion. Any time he makes stupid statements like this(and he always does):
We need to pin him and make him explain it rather than let it pass. If we let it go it becomes accepted…..
March 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pmfred garvin you deserve less attention than backup. I’m going to flag you and orange every time I see your post.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pmbackup leaves and fred garvin appears. I smell a name change.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:35 pmSocialism=bad. America isn’t and should never be socialist.
Ok, cancel all police and fire protection services and have every American buy into a plan to supply the services. Hope there is some sort of reciprocal agreement between municipalities, counties and whoever.
Park your car in your driveway until you can find a plan that supports streets and roads.
Dig deep to put your kids through grade school.
Flush a fiver down the toilet every time you crap.
Don’t ever get on an airplane or train or bus.
Grow your own food in the back yard.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:38 pmOnce again, FOX News has assumed the role of spin doctor for comments made by someone else. A “master of communication” such as Limbaugh should not need to have his statements reinterpreted and clarified every two days.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:38 pmEither that or grow up and ignore the Republican boogiemen.
Your choice.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:39 pmChris Wallace, honey, when people tell you who they are… listen to them.
Rush said he wants Obama to fail… don’t put meaning in Limbaugh’s mouth, he speaks perfectly well for himself. No need for spin. He liked it so nice, he said it twice…
March 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pmtokin librul Says:
Slimeball only said explicitly what every Puke in Congress believes.
They can only regain power if Obama & the Dims fail. There is NO other option.
I don’t think so. Even if President Obama “fails” it will still be on the repugs’ heads. The only way repugs will be in power again is that they steal their third election.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:51 pmWow. I’ve never seen ralph angry.
Impressive! :-)
March 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pmNot so long ago corporations and companies got recognition as ‘people’. Seems to me if they want that status they should be filing income taxes like the rest of us people.
Can they get the ‘married’ deduction if they merge? Are their employees classed as dependents? Can AIG claim medical expenses as a deduction because they are sick?
March 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pmI am a little ashamed, Zoo. But you gotta admit, b-cup had it comin’.
March 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pmI will have to addmy name to the ever growing list of people who also want Obamas policies to fail. We do not need to become a second Russia
March 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pmhsaldlorah says:
Your absolutley sir! We don’t want to become a “second Russia.” If Obama’s policies fail we won’t have to worry about that. We’ll be a third world nation like say…Afganistan or one of the republics that border Russia.
Twit.
March 8th, 2009 at 4:55 pmYour hysterical fear-based “reasoning” notwithstanding, your desire for the nation to fail to recover from this economic crisis has been duly noted.
March 8th, 2009 at 4:56 pmhsaldlorah Says:
I will have to addmy name to the ever growing list of people who also want Obamas policies to fail. We do not need to become a second Russia
Too late.
March 8th, 2009 at 4:59 pmHe does have it coming Ralph, he just aint worth it.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:02 pmThe US has already given up its 1st world leadership. We abandoned our moral position when we embraced torture. We lost the high ground when we let our banks bankrupt the world. Tell me, what is left?
March 8th, 2009 at 5:02 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
I am a little ashamed, Zoo. But you gotta admit, b-cup had it comin’.
March 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
No need to feel ashamed, ralph. He definitely had it coming. :-)
March 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pmYou’re right, Fred. I appreciate your efforts to rein me in back there.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pmWhat ever growing list? The one in the recess’s of your mind?
Associated press writer:
don’t follow the link troll, it will make you cry.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pmI will have to add my name to the ever growing list of people who get irritated from those that can’t properly space between words.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:07 pmTrollspotter:
You’re right. I said this:
If you think that progressives should be held to the same standard as conservatives – ‘tit for tat’, I cannot argue against it.
Conservatives were wrong. I argue two wrongs don’t make it right. But, because conservatives did it, progressives have the right to do it, too.
If they do, however, I don’t see how they can claim any relative moral high ground.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:18 pmExplain your logic on this statement cappy.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:21 pmBackup,
please explain how taxing exxon who pays no taxes and draws huge welfare in the form of subsidies will hurt our economy?
remember, they recorded record profits last several quarters and yet they went from 120,000 employees in 05 to 80,000 this year so that profit aint producing any jobs….
March 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pmAll we accomplish by cutting taxes while we have things we MUST pay for, is more and more debt. It’s not fiscally responsible, no matter how you look at it.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:26 pmralph. Everyone gets upset. No big deal. I looked at your post at around #172.
I see the difference between someone diametrically opposed to Obama, like Limbaugh, and those in the article that question his policies.
What they share in common is skeptism that Obama’s plans will be beneficial.
The main difference is in how confident they are in their skeptism and how strongly they voice it.
And, I am not trying to make you upset. I just don’t understand the significance of Limbaugh’s hope for Obama failure.
And I don’t really find it credible when progressives tell me they didn’t want Bush’s policies to fail.
Bush wanted to do a lot of things that progressives did not want. Why would progressives want Bush to succeed in fulfilling his agenda? If they wanted him to succeed, why did they spend so much energy working against it?
March 8th, 2009 at 5:26 pmWe are held to a higher standard. That’s why when we call someone a traitor, you should listen.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:27 pmAnd Fred and Bilbo.
The statement I made about taxes and spending was a hypothetical response of someone that opposed the administrations direction.
I think progressives have a strong argument for a period of higher taxes for upper incomes and increased social spending.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:29 pmThe only ones skeptical are you and a few other ignoramouses who didn’t know anything then and you don’t know anything now. Why should we listen to you? America isn’t. From Associated press cap:
Why don’t you just admit that you are wrong. It’s not hard to do. You just have to take that first step.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:33 pmLet me see if we understand each other correctly.
If progressives decide to go after conservatives’ patriotism every day over the next 4 or 8 years, and successfully demonize you and your lot as America-hating traitors, then it’s a sad state of political discourse, but you reluctantly accept that you absolutely deserve everything you get because of how poorly your party behaved during the Bush administration.
If progressives decide to be merciful and choose not to go after conservatives’ patriotism every day over the next 4 or 8 years, then it would be reasonable for Americans to conclude that, in this respect, progressives are simply much kinder, better and more decent folk than conservatives.
Yes?
March 8th, 2009 at 5:33 pmNo you didn’t, you said it in support of that person and this is what you said:
So which is it? Are taxes good or bad in this enviornment? You can’t continue to have it both ways. that’s what pisses people off at you.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pmOh boy, here’s a golden one. cap doesn’t find us credible. Astonishing arrogance and insolence.
With this you should understand why you are treated with such distain.
Cap, you’ve turned into a second rate troll. What happened, did the powder get you?
March 8th, 2009 at 6:00 pmAnd I don’t really find it credible when progressives tell me they didn’t want Bush’s policies to fail.
Except we were pointing out how easily an Iraq could morph into another Vietnam. That’s not hoping it would turn into another debacle, that’s simply predicting it would, given what we knew at the time, and what we knew about historical precedent.
Since the recession is the greatest in modern times, and there is no historical precedent, the same case is not true of Obama’s attempts to get us out of this mess.
It’s the difference between “we don’t know what’s out there, and we hope we’re doing the right thing” and “we’ve been down a similar path before recently, and it ended horribly.”
March 8th, 2009 at 6:10 pmChris Wallace has proven himself to be a total moron. He was inching close to the designation for months – now he’s a full-fledged idiot trying to rationalize and justify Limpballs’ anti-american comment.
Nice try, Chris – but your day in the sunshine is over. Move over because the american people don’t want to hear any of your blather.
I’m sure Chris Wallace would justify Hitler’s actions, too. Sicko.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pmPop the popcorn because anyone who attempts to justify Limpball’ comment about “wanting the president to fail” is going down in flames along with RushOxy himself.
Saying you want the president to fail is absolutely NO different than saying that you hope this country fails.
In my book, it’s time to begin rounding up these unamerican loudmouths and throwing them in prison as “enemy combatants” under the Patriot Act.
Turnabout is fair play…..the adage of “be careful what you ask for” is coming ’round full circle now.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:14 pmLet’s face it: If Obama’s recovery plan fails, do you want to become the target of american’s frustrations and blame?
Rush will have to go into hiding if this plan fails now. He’s be a marked man with 80% of the country ringing for him.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pmFred. Here’s my comment in broader context. Do you understand how it’s a hypothetical rebuttal of your assessment? A point that I make to show you that opposition to Obama, whether it is reasonable or not, is genuine?
Again, I think progressives have a strong case for a period of higher taxes on upper incomes and more social spending.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:27 pmListen to that weasel chris wallace, distorting and defending what fat-assed compulsive liar limbaugh stated out loud and clear. “I want the president to fail.”
hey wallace, why don’t you just owe up to the fact that you’re just like former senator larry craig, another hypocrite defending the indefensible. I can’t believe anyone would listen to the garbage limpballs spews, let alone defend it. Fricken wallace, last time I actually paid attention to one of his interviews was when former President Bill Clinton kicked his ass!
March 8th, 2009 at 6:37 pmTrollspotter. To answer your post around #27.
If you thought it was wrong that conservatives questioned the patriotism of those the opposed the Bush administration, it’s probably still wrong to question the patriotism of someone opposed to the Obama administration today.
If, on the other hand, you think that conservatives earned the right to charge those in opposition as traitors and as unpatriotic, simply by being in power; then you should feel confident that progressives have now earned the right to charge those in opposition to Obama as traitors and as unpatriotic. Tit for tat.
If you chose to charge those in opposition with Obama today as traitors and as unpatriotic, then you are no less, but also no more, than those conservatives that did the same thing to progressives in the past.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:41 pmsupposed to be a response to you post around #207.
March 8th, 2009 at 6:42 pmThat’s not quite what I asked.
If, some 4 or 8 years from now, after daily, withering attacks on conservatives’ patriotism, “conservative” becomes synonymous with “traitor who hopes America fails,” will you, as a conservative, accept this gracefully? Will you attempt to temper the outrage of your fellow conservatives about it? Will you say, “Honestly, guys, we had this coming because we tried to do the exact same thing to liberals all throughout the Bush years” or will you be silent?
March 8th, 2009 at 6:56 pmFred. Do me a favor. Post this for me:
“I wish Bush’s policies would have succeeded.”
or this:
“If conservatives ever regain power, I hope they are successful in reversing today’s progressive initiatives.”
or maybe this:
“My ideology isn’t really that important to me. What’s really important is to help ensure that whomever is in power, and whatever it is they want to do, is successful.”
The suggestion that progressives did not want Bush to fail in leading the country further right, is not credible.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:04 pmChris Wallace “pals around” with Karl Rove. They go “hunting” together.
Would you expect him NOT to be a loyal Reich Winger? Do you honestly think he’s even able to be objective, or sane for that matter?
This is not rocket science, folks.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:05 pmIf you chose to charge those in opposition with Obama today as traitors and as unpatriotic, then you are no less, but also no more, than those conservatives that did the same thing to progressives in the past.
Nice try, but this moral equivalence falls apart on closer inspection. We have seen republicans’ grand experiment fail, and we have predicted for years that it would, based upon historical precedent. This is not the same as cheering for failure. A person who knows from experience what happens when a house is doused with gas and a match is tossed in, and who then predicts catastrophe, isn’t hoping the house will burn down.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:05 pmThe suggestion that progressives did not want Bush to fail in leading the country further right, is not credible.
Was that ever a stated goal of the administration? Now you’re trying to move the goalposts.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:09 pm“If conservatives ever regain power, I hope they are successful in reversing today’s progressive initiatives.”
More fake equivalence. We knew from historical precedent, from what has and hasn’t worked in the past. This isn’t the same thing as republicans wishing Obama’s failure, while attempting to fix an unprecedented problem. The factors differ substantially from those that caused the first depression, so historical precedent in this regard is of little use.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:16 pmTrollspotter. I have acknowledged that it was wrong for conservatives to question the patriotism of those opposed to Bush in the war. Although, I don’t think I ever personally questioned someone’s patriotism, I offered an apology for the practice. It was wrong. The opposition to the war had obvious legitimacy. Those voices of opposition were important.
I speak up whether I agree or disagree. If I was with a conservative that complained about being charged as unpatriotic, I would remind them that conservatives did the same thing over war protests.
But, because I speak up and I believe that it was wrong for conservatives to charge opposition as unpatriotic, I am making an effort to dissuade progressives from making the same mistake.
Progressives have the right to do whatever they want to do. Maybe it would never impact them. But, conservatives tried to tie opposition to a lack of patriotism and it backfired. It wasn’t good for the country and it obviously wasn’t good for Republicans.
It is opposition that forces our leadership to answer to the people. If what the leadership is doing is easily defensible, the opposition won’t have any consequence. But, if the leadership cannot defend it’s positions, it has to work harder to find better solutions.
Opposition is valuable. Progressives have convinced me of that.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pmI do wish bush’s policies had succeeded. Do you honestly think I like our country being in this recession? Do you honestly believe that captain?
bush failed on so many other things and even if America decided they wanted to keep a republican I would have been pretty upset but we would all be better off in general if bush’s policies had succeeded.
But that’s sofistry captain because so many of us knew his economic policies were going to fail. That’s why it was so easy to predict.
The fact that you can’t wrap your head around these obvious truths shows that you may not be capable of good clear thought. That some bias in you against progressives or libs still overrides your ability to think clearly.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pmfurther capman, we were all behind him when we went to Afganistan. We were going after the people that attacked us.
I get the feeling that you are not willing to see the difference.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:25 pmWould you expect him NOT to be a loyal Reich Winger? Do you honestly think he’s even able to be objective, or sane for that matter?
March 8th, 2009 at 7:28 pmnow do me a favor. Post this for me:
rush is a traitor
March 8th, 2009 at 7:28 pmIt is opposition that forces our leadership to answer to the people. If what the leadership is doing is easily defensible, the opposition won’t have any consequence. But, if the leadership cannot defend it’s positions, it has to work harder to find better solutions.
A simplistic view to say the least, considering how anti-Obama the media has become since the election. They have been using GOP talking points, and refusing to engage economists to grade of Obama’s attempts to fix the problems we face.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:30 pmbarfly. You seem to be saying that progressives know the answers, so we don’t need opposition. I appreciate confidence. But, I’m not sure were it comes from in our current circumstance.
You mention knowledge of the past. From yesterday, I offered Schiff, who seem to be able to forecast today’s economic predicament:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
And his opinion of Bush’s (and now Obama’s) responses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbvL4u-MrVM
I’m not saying Schiff has all the answers, but his story should give anyone debating the enormous spending some pause. Not the confidence you suggest.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:30 pmActually I DISAGREE, the FOUNDATION for THIS DEPRESSION IS *IDENTICAL* to the FIRST ONE. It’s called MARGIN and OVER LEVERAGING which is EXACTLY THE SAME! ;)
There was no fannie may, nor freddie mac back then, nor do we currently have a dustbowl, creating agricultural poverty, and thousands of impoverished economic refugees.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pmbackup Says:
barfly. You seem to be saying that progressives know the answers, so we don’t need opposition. I appreciate confidence. But, I’m not sure were it comes from in our current circumstance.
Principled opposition, yes. But when it can be easily shown that the opposition is unprincipled, and interested only in making political points, instead of fixing the problems, then it is a parody of truely principled opposition, and should be rejected, as such.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:40 pmbarfly. This sounds reasonable. I will think about it.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:45 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Oh and barfly, the dustbowl was 1934, FIVE YEARS after the GREAT DEPRESSION was *DECLARED*… Not sure where you are getting your info, but it’s completely WRONG!
Are you seriously arguing that it had no effect on the depression?
Did I say the dustbowl started the depression? I don’t think so.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:46 pmfred garvin Says:
Would somebody get that memo to obama?
Actually, I was talking about Iraq, but it also works in the current economic mess.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:47 pmFred. your post back around #231 is also reasonable. I understand what you are saying, and agree with you on the point about Afghanistan.
I still have a problem with other parts of the conservative agenda that is more applicable to today’s discussion.
Gun ownership, abortion rights, gay rights, tax policy, social spending, etc.
These and many other issues create differences of opinion between conservatives and progressives.
I do not understand why a progressive would not want a conservative President to fail make conservative advances on these issues. That would change the country in what progressives must believe would be a negative way.
Why wouldn’t progressives want that to fail?
March 8th, 2009 at 7:50 pmAny Liberal Democrat who appears on FOX News should expect to have feces mashed in his or her face. Don’t they understand that FOX News is the right arm of the Republican Party?
Why give FOX credibility by appearing on their talk shows?
March 8th, 2009 at 7:50 pmNoted, and yet the man you are choosing to defend, Rush Limbaugh, did his damnedest every day, year after year to demonize that opposition as traitorous. Do you have an appreciation for karma or poetic justice? Would it be “fair” for Rush Limbaugh to reap what he has sown?
Thank you for answering this question. It’s commendable that you would do this. Is the reverse also true?
In other words, if President Obama makes a point of trying to reel in voices on the left who question Republican patriotism over the next 4 to 8 years, if he sets a better example than W.’s “You’re either with us or against us,” will you tell your fellow conservatives that, on this issue, progressives do in fact hold the moral high ground and conservatives should take a lesson from them?
I appreciate that, honestly, I do. And I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me.
But can you understand why conservatives cannot make this argument without coming off as shameful hypocrites?
You said you believe it was wrong and a mistake to demonize liberals. Do you therefore believe progressives deserve an apology? And if the answer’s yes, why has conservative leadership failed to do so? Shouldn’t the loudest voices in the GOP have the courage to acknowledge this wrong, divisive mistake much the way you have? What does it say about the state of conservatism that they haven’t?
March 8th, 2009 at 7:55 pmThe fact has been established that Limbaugh wants to see the President fails.
Not only Limbaugh said it..he later defended his postion and what he said when criticised by people even from his own party.
Wallace who is a Fox lousy reporter , is now playing
March 8th, 2009 at 7:56 pma lousy Rush Limbaugh’s lawyer.
That would change the country in what progressives must believe would be a negative way.
Why wouldn’t progressives want that to fail?
You’re ignoring historical precedent. If we can show that republican policies have been tried in the past, and failed, it’s not the same as “wanting them to fail,” so much as knowing in advance (by the use of historical perspective) what hasn’t worked in the past.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pmCan someone please just tell me who is running the GOP show? I sort of hope it is that annoying little kid
March 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pmJust think RHF, Rush is now the lead dog, and they all are stuck behind him. Imagine what it must be like, looking at that lumpy butt, day in, day out.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:05 pmWhat a shame this man didn’t inherit his father’s intellect.
So Chris Wallace kisses the ring. Why am I NOT surprised?
March 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm*
Since I have given the apology, I absolutely do believe that progressives deserve the apology.
It was wrong for conservatives to question the patriotism of those that opposed the war. If conservatives want to insulate those that oppose Obama today from questions about patriotism, they should answer for their charges of the past. And apologize for them.
I agree with you, Trollspotter.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:57 pmhere ya go backup.
This is what conservatism amounts to. It’s the only philosophy on life that people have end of life conversions from and renounce before they meet thier maker.
Wallace’s daughter observe Selma anniversary
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090308/ap_on_re_us/bridge_crossing_holder
Also see lee attwater.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:20 pmbackup, I’m genuinely heartened by that response. I had the mistaken sense that you were trying to find a way to excuse conservatives from this. It’s my pleasure to be wrong on that point.
March 8th, 2009 at 9:43 pmTrollspotter, don’t be fooled by b-cup.
He’s a concern troll, and one of the best. He teases with “I agree with you” and makes a show of “principled opposition” but ultimately, he’s dishonest to the core when it comes to debating. It’s a lesson I took a long time to learn, because I appreciate genuine debate from reasonable conservatives, and there are so few here. For a long time I thought of b-cup as one of those, going back to when he was Captain Mantastic. Other TPers tried to tell me how wrong i was, and I dismissed them, until a few weeks ago my eyes were finally opened.
I think it was a Rush Limbaugh thread, as a matter of fact, in which b-cup was mounting what has become a signature tune for him: Rush Apologia. I tried to give him the benefits of several doubts, until i could no longer deny the truth. It was a sad day for me, but freeing in a weird way. I no longer had to invest any meaningful energy in b-cup specious arguments.
I recommend the same to you.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:02 pmbackup Says:
Fred. Do me a favor. Post this for me:
“I wish Bush’s policies would have succeeded.”
Hello?
You can wish in one hand and do you know what in the other. Fact is this country has been led astray by huge corporations via the neocon movement in the repug party for the last 40+ years…..
reagan/bush 41 QUADTRUPLED the national debt
bush/hallichainy have DOUBLED it again…
bankrupting our govt to stuff the pockets of their owners……
FACT: trickle down/voodoo economics that give tax breaks primarily to the richest 1% and allow giant corps to pay little tax, deregulation, privatization…..is a TOTAL FAILURE…..
figure it out son…..stop with the bs partisanship
we are all Americans and hoping America recovers….
if you don’t then perhaps you might want to ask yourself why you’ve placed your neocon ideology over country
and why because you do that, you think others do that….
it’s pathetic….
March 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pmbackup Says:
Fred. your post back around #231 is also reasonable. I understand what you are saying, and agree with you on the point about Afghanistan.
I still have a problem with other parts of the conservative agenda that is more applicable to today’s discussion.
Gun ownership, abortion rights, gay rights, tax policy, social spending, etc.
These and many other issues create differences of opinion between conservatives and progressives.
I do not understand why a progressive would not want a conservative President to fail make conservative advances on these issues. That would change the country in what progressives must believe would be a negative way.
Why wouldn’t progressives want that to fail?
>>>>>
Here is one of the leaders of the neocon movement, describing their goals for our govt…..
My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist
Let me ask you this buddy, why should Americans support and ideology that dooms our govt to FAILURE and BANKRUPTCY…….
The neocon policies have done exactly that with regard to economics and foreign policy….yet they (and you) continue to spew culture war bs to hook dimwits into supporting the neocon agenda blindly….
where are we now after 40+ years of this kind of bs son?
time you woke
March 8th, 2009 at 10:33 pmRalph, I appreciate that advice. It’s kind of you to warn me. Though I’m relatively new here, I’ve lurked long enough to get a sense of backup’s rep as a reasonable-seeming but ultimately dishonest concern troll. Forewarned is forearmed, but it’s difficult for me not to give him the benefit of the doubt until I experience it first hand. I’m proceeding with caution.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:37 pmIt’s also good to hear a conservative–any conservative–apologize for the demonizing of war protesters. Whatever backup’s motivation is in posting here, I’m digging that.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:41 pmI can dig where you’re coming from, trollspotter. It’s honorable — giving him the benefit of the doubt until he proves unworthy of it. It also shows a commitment to empirical data, or at least, to personal experience rather than taking as gospel the word of others. Classy move.
And welcome to the community.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:46 pmralph. we agreed on a few issues and you view subsequent differences as betrayal. I find it strange that you feel compelled to tell other people how to think.
The idea is this. Conservatives were wrong about questioning the patriotism of those opposed to the war. Trollspotter is right. They should reconsider those charges in light of their own current Republican opposition.
Conservatives, to include Limbaugh, that want to make the point their opposition to Obama is based on ideological differences, should be confronted by the ideological differences that progressives had to the war and the reaction they got from the same conservatives that today see their opposition as appropriate.
I think it deserves a whole thread.
March 8th, 2009 at 10:50 pmbackup Says:
Fred. Do me a favor. Post this for me:
“I wish Bush’s policies would have succeeded.”
___________
I can assure you w/ one hundred percent candor… I wish Bush’s policies had succeeded. If we had a smaller Federal deficit, lower taxes and unemployment, less crime, a cleaner environment, better schools, a peaceful functioning democracy in Iraq… I would be delighted.
But… it didn’t work out that way, did it? NOT… EVEN… CLOSE…
I could care less if a Dem or GOOPer is in office… AS LONG AS THEY GET THE JOB DONE… and BotchCo didn’t.
Get over yourself, b-cup. You’re not smarter than the rest of us. And your childish prating grows wearisome. But that is such a stylish bow tie.
Care for some watermelon?
March 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pmThe idea is this. Conservatives were wrong about questioning the patriotism of those opposed to the war. Trollspotter is right. They should reconsider those charges in light of their own current Republican opposition.
Good doggie.
I’ve trained you well. Now, if you’d only started from that position at the beginning of your time here at TP, all that nasty negative-reinforcement wouldn’t have been necessary.
Do you see how much more believable you sound, when you apologize up front?
March 8th, 2009 at 11:05 pmbackup Says:
Conservatives, to include Limbaugh, that want to make the point their opposition to Obama is based on ideological differences, should be confronted by the ideological differences that progressives had to the war and the reaction they got from the same conservatives that today see their opposition as appropriate.
_______________
Gee… THAT’s clear, b-cup…
Here’s one for ya…
How much shoo could a shoo be doo be do if a shoo be doo be doo could shoo?
March 8th, 2009 at 11:11 pmVery nice of you, I’ve been enjoying your posts from back when I was a lurker. Thanks for the kind words and welcome.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:15 pmThough I’m sure it would cause some short term problems, it’s really in their best interest to own up to and apologize for that divisiveness as soon as possible. Independents are rightfully angry with the GOP, but how long they stay angry can be influenced by Republican leadership. Which, for better and worse, seems to be Rush Limbaugh right now.
I’m a little zonked here so I’m turning in. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Have a good night, everyone.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:44 pmTrollspotter. I agree it would help. Nice work.
Good crowd. Mañana.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:00 amPerfect example of b-cup’s dishonesty.
I do not view subsequent “differences” as betrayal. I view continued arguments in bad faith as betrayal. I have explained dozens of times to b-cup what my issues were — straw man arguments, moving the goal posts, deliberate mischaracterizations of others’ positions, among others.
Yet b-cup continues to describe these objections as mere “differences”, as if we used to agree, but as soon as we disagreed, i decided I didn’t want to be his friend anymore.
Cheesy dishonest crap from b-cup. Par for the course.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:03 amOne more point about this load of crap:
I didn’t tell trollspotter “what to think”. In fact, when he confirmed his willingness to give b-cup the benefit of the doubt, I applauded him.
What I did was warn him on the basis of my own experience with a slippery shit of a concern troll, of what he could probably expect.
Yet b-cup claims I was “compelled to tell other people how to think”. This is the same kind of flabby logic that allows wingnuts to claim any criticism of Limbaugh or anyone else is “trying to silence them”.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am… and of course, fred garvin can only aspire to produce cheesy dishonest crap, instead of the laughable incoherence that makes up his current body of work.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:11 amI’m sure everyone here has heard of the New World Order and the goal of having a police state/martial law? Well I voted for Obama hoping for change. However, as far as the mortgage crisis is concerned, I’ve always felt it was done on purpose. I even remember when I was buying a house in ‘05 my lender told me there was a correction coming so it’s not like the bankers didn’t know what was around the corner. IMO the crooks on Wall Street should be locked up but noone is going after them. Instead of being punished they’re being handed billions of taxpayer dollars. Something is wrong w/ this picture!!
I hate Rush Limbaugh but is it possible this is all being done to distract all Americans while disturbing changes are taking place behind the scenes? We now have the federal gov’t bailing out the states, which has to make you wonder what is really going on. Is this part of a plan to eliminate the middle class completely?
I want to believe in Obama and everything he’s doing so someone please tell me I’m just being paranoid.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:36 amred garvin Says:
Even though the very same war protesters were demonizing our troops.
_____________
It’d be a real sign of maturity and personal honesty on your part if you’d actually cite the sources for your “info”. It’s actually pretty easy to cut and paste the passage into Google and find your source, dummy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp
It’s from the NRO and it’s over 4 years old, about a war that ended almost 40 years old. Do you ever NOT deal in the past?
And since you want to go over John Kerry and the Winter Soldier business, try this on…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation
The U.S. participation in the Vietnam conflict was the source of much deeply divided sentiment among Americans. The Winter Soldier Investigation produced a conglomerate of testimony resulting in the implication and indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct, and thereby further drove a wedge between proponents and opponents of the war.
For more than thirty years since the WSI, individuals and organizations have sought to discredit or at least minimize the painful revelations brought forth at that event. Critics have claimed that participants were frauds; that they were told to not cooperate with later investigators; that their testimonies were inaccurate or just plain fabricated. [27] To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced. [28]
____________
What’s that last line say? TO DATE, NO RECORDS OF FRAUDULENT PARTICIPANTS… ouch…
BTW, you’re also conflating apples and oranges, twit. To say those “anti-war protesters” (the Vietnam War ones) are the same bunch over here is absurd and utterly disingenuous… but hey… you gotta be you.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:43 amDropdeadcharisma:
I wonder the same thing, but what I don’t know is what exactly was against the law? Did the loans that were made break any laws? Surely someone here can help me with that. But it seems to me that the problem here (at least part of it) was that the lending practices were “ahead” of the law, in that they were handled differently than before. If that is the case, and there were no laws in place, how could we “go after them”?
And yes, I am sure this is a plan to eliminate the middle class as much as I am sure you voted for Obama.
Did you have the same sense of paranoia when Bush was doling out billions of dollars to these same companies? Was he trying to eliminate the middle class completely?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:55 amfred garvin Says:
Thanks to dodd, frank and pelosi.
*****
March 9th, 2009 at 12:58 amNO the bank bailout is thanks to Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke. THEY are the idiots who handed the crooks on Wall Street billions of dollars w/ no oversight. How many times does this have to be said?
tbone,
Yes I did vote for Obama and I HATE Bush so don’t even go there w/ me!!!! I think he was put in power to make his buddies rich and he happened to bring down the middle class in the meantime.
Yeah I guess the banks were ahead of the law. But you can’t tell me they didn’t know what the outcome would be. That’s why a lot of them got out right before the bubble burst.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:15 amfred garvin Says:
Instead of being punished they’re being handed billions of taxpayer dollars.
___________
What the hell is this idiot muttering bout?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:19 amddc: I must’ve misinterpreted your remarks. I took it as you were saying the Obama administration was trying to change things behind the scenes. You made a couple statements about the Obama administration and followed with negative connotations and I thought you were attributing the negative situation to Obama. I apologize for mischaracterizing and negatively responding to your statement. Regardless of your intention, I shouldn’t have been so negative in addressing a poster. I apologize.
That being said, if I understand correctly, I agree that this was intentional. How could it not be? I would love for someone to explain to me how the people who created this mess were somehow so naive that they didn’t see this potentiality? I posit that they did. They didn’t care. They made their investors a mint of money, and then, I am sure they at least suspected (i.e. they knew) they would get bailed out if a problem arose. Seriously. Why else would they get big bonuses for “failing”? They made many people rich. And when the BS hit the fan, the gov bailed them out. So, the result is they take our money twice over. Once as consumers and second as taxpayers.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:35 amwhat was he saying then ?
March 9th, 2009 at 2:19 amfred garvin Says:
“It’s from the NRO and it’s over 4 years old, about a war that ended almost 40 years old. Do you ever NOT deal in the past?”
That matters, how? Enjoy your crow…..
_____________
fred garvin Says:
What’s that last line say? TO DATE, NO RECORDS OF FRAUDULENT PARTICIPANTS… ouch…
————–
Acording to wiki.
_________
That’s matters how? Enjoy yer bowl of ice-cold sh*t…
March 9th, 2009 at 2:29 amhttp://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp
The first cliché is that atrocities were widespread in Vietnam. But this is nonsense. Atrocities did occur in Vietnam, but they were far from widespread. Between 1965 and 1973, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. Of course, the fact that many crimes, either in war or peace, go unreported, combined with the particular difficulties encountered by Americans fighting in Vietnam, suggest that more such acts were committed than reported or tried.
_____________
OF COURSE, THE FACT THAT MANY CRIMES GO UNREPORTED… duh… ouch…
Gee… your own source contradicts himself right off the bat. That’s gotta hurt, fred. Gonna leave a mark tomorrow, huh? 201 soldiers??? 77 Marines??? That’s more than a few.
______________
In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie.
______________
Gee… a little validation of THAT statement, other than the author’s own insistence, would be nice.
______________
fred garvin Says:
Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans.
______________
STILL NOT linking to your sources, or identifying them, huh?
(Same NRO article…)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation
Verification of participants’ credibility
The organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation took several steps to guarantee the validity of the participants.
Each veteran’s authenticity was checked before the hearings by the investigation event organizers, and subsequently by reporters and Pentagon officials. In addition, they also gave specific details about their units and the locations where the events had occurred. Those who wanted to testify were carefully screened by the officers of VVAW, and care was taken to verify the service records and testimony of the veterans. After the severe criticism of the accuracy of Mark Lane’s book about atrocities a month before the event, the organizers of the Winter Soldier Investigation made the credibility of the participants a top priority. All veterans participating in Winter Soldier were required to bring their discharge papers (DD-214’s) and IDs.[16]
In this connection, the identifying military affiliation of each veteran testifying, including in almost all cases, the dates of service, appears on the roster for each panel that was included with the testimony in the Congressional Record [4]
As noted in VVAW records, each veteran’s authenticity and testimony were checked after the hearings by Nixon’s “plumbers.” Charles Colson was assigned the task. In a confidential “Plan to Counteract Viet Nam Veterans Against the War,” Colson wrote, “The men that participated in the pseudo-atrocity hearings in Detroit will be checked to ascertain if they are genuine combat veterans.” At one point, the Nixon team suggested in a memo about VVAW, “Several of their regional coordinators are former Kennedy supporters.” [17] VVAW was also targeted by the FBI for observation as a possible dissident organization.
Although military documentation was provided, some media organizations such as the Detroit News made further inquiries into the hearings by questioning the authenticity of the 109 testifying veterans. Discharge papers were examined; military records were checked against the Pentagon records; after all their digging, not one fraudulent veteran was found.[18]
Fritz Efaw, a Chapter Representative of VVAW, stated: “The claims that the WSI hearings contained falsified testimony from men who were not veterans is an old one, and it’s definitely false. The testimony was startling even at the time it took place: startling to the general public, startling to the military and the Nixon administration, and startling to those who participated because each of them knew a piece of the story, but the hearings brought a great many of them together for the first time and provided a venue in which they could be heard for the first time. It’s hardly surprising that those on the other side would set out almost immediately to discredit them.”
Seven years after the hearings, writer Guenter Lewy claimed in his book, America in Vietnam, that allegations against Marines were investigated by the Naval Investigative Service. Lewy wrote that the report stated that some veterans contacted by the NIS did not attend the WSI hearing in Detroit or had never been to Detroit, and many refused to be interviewed.
However, government officials today cannot verify the report’s existence, and no other historian has seen it.[5] Lewy later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or simply been told of its contents.[6] [7]
____________
HOWEVER, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TODAY CANNOT VERIFY THE REPORT’S EXISTENCE… dang… that’s defintely gonna show tomorrow…
Enjoy that big bowl of cold sh*t fred… there’s plenty more where that came from.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:50 amGINGRICH: I don’t think anyone should want the president of the United States to fail. I want some of his policies to be stopped, but I don’t want the president of the United States to fail. I want him to learn new policies.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:37 amol Fred probably needs to learn something more than what his neocon masters indoctrinate him with……Stolen Valor is a good name for a book that SMEARS a decorated war veteran eh?
Furthermore, anyone not believing that war crimes were committed by policy in Vietnam should perhaps begin listening to some folks who were actually there…..and understand what that policies like using willy pete (also used in falluja) on civilians and FREE FIRE ZONES were the unwritten orders of the day and routine……AND they were expressly forbidden by the Geneva Conventions
As we all know by now, scum like neocons don’t believe in the rule of law or Geneva Conventions or even the US Constitution……they only believe in one thing…..$PROFITS$
USAF Security 68-72
March 9th, 2009 at 9:01 amBien Hoa, Tay Nihn, Cu Chi
BTW
Shout out to brother “The Republic of Stupidity”, for supporting veterans by telling truth and debunking those who seek to slander vets who returned to speak truth to power…..
The VVAW was formed when vets saw the criminal nixon regime attempting to scapegoat Lt. Calley as a renegade commander, who acted on his own. In fact, Calley was following the FREE FIRE ZONE, SEARCH AND DESTROY, TORCH AND BURN a village order he was given. The Winter Soldier vets were speaking out to show that Calley was not an anomalie but the rule of the day in Vietnam.
ie…they were supporting veterans, not a political ideology…
think on it fred…..that is if you poor indoctrinated brain will allow you to still think independently at all…eh?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:08 amJust in case anyone not living thru those times might want to see some TRUTH about Winter Soldier…..
http://www.wintersoldierfilm.com/
*btw, BEWARE the site http://www.wintersoldier.com/, which is a site usurped by the lying neocon repugs who sought to discredit the actual Vietnam veterans who returned to speak truth to power…. This shows how devious and anti-American these people actually are….to usurp the name of this group and create a website to tell LIES about war vets…eh?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:16 amhsaldlorah Says:
I will have to addmy name to the ever growing list of people who also want Obamas policies to fail. We do not need to become a second Russia
March 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
____________
I’m pretty sure we already ARE a second Russia – an unregulated capitalist oil company kleptocracy with a failing bank system. Thanks to the Bush Administration, of course…
March 9th, 2009 at 9:58 amHey Chris Wallace!!! You go back and read Limbaughs “Original” comments regarding President Obama. Limbaugh NEVER said he “hopes President Obama’s policies fail”. Limbaugh just added that “policy” piece after there was a backlash to his comments. You people on the “Right” are such liars!!!
March 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pmmaxamillion Says:
Limbaugh just added that “policy” piece after there was a backlash to his comments. You people on the “Right” are such liars!!!
_________
Ummm… didn’t Rush himself even come out and say that?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:37 pm“Apart from the fact that there is little distinction between”
Chris Wallace and fake journalism.
Daddy must hate him.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pmWanna smile today?? See Rush get owned by a crowd of REALLY pissed off people!! THIS may be WHY he only does radio now…(besides the fact that a baboon’s a$$ is more attractive than his face)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNK4byQkn7w&eurl=
These people have my eternal admiration!!!
March 9th, 2009 at 6:32 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNK4byQkn7w&eurl=
March 9th, 2009 at 6:33 pmtbone,
March 10th, 2009 at 4:12 pmPeace, friend!
http://www.euronext.com/editorial/wide/editorial-43618-EN.html
The following two revenue share schemes are in place for Liffe CDS contracts:
CDS Reporting Scheme rewards those registered Members who submit CDS transactions to Bclear
CDS Clearing Scheme rewards those registered Clearing Members who clear CDS contracts
Both schemes allocate a total of 20% of net revenues derived from Liffe CDS contracts.
Please refer to London Notice No.3098 for further information.
Approved registered members on these schemes:
Banca IMI SPA
March 12th, 2009 at 10:20 pmBanco Santander S.A.
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG
BGC Brokers LP
Calyon SA
Citigroup Markets Ltd
Credit Suisse Securities Europe Ltd
Deutsche Bank AG
Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank
Dresdner Bank AG
GFI Securities Limited
Goldman Sachs International
HSBC Bank PLC
ICAP Securities Ltd
J P Morgan Securities Limited
Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg
Liquid Capital Securities
Merrill Lynch International
MF Global UK Limited
Natixis
Newedge Group SA
Nomura International PLC
Rabobank International
Royal Bank of Canada Europe Limited
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (publ)
Société Générale
The Royal Bank of Scotland
Tradition Securities And Futures
Tullet Prebon (Securities) Limited
UBS Clearing & Execution Services Limited
UBS Limited
( Do you notice the presence of SOME OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE RECEIVED MEDIA ATTENTION FOR THEIR PART IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC $$$#**&! sorry, was I shouting, again?…uncletumbleweed)and are these CDS contracts the mortgages (and deeds) to American homes? sold to “anonymity guaranteed” buyers?
Is Citi in a good financial position because this trading began on 3/9/09, with the blessing of the NYSE? the dysfunctional SEC and CFTC? while the White House makes wisecracks about Rush whatever-his-name-is to distract America? Just like Slick Willie did with his scandal while the FMA of 1999 and the CFMA of 2000 were being passed? When the media gets sidetracked by something really stupid…start reading… something is going on!
What happened to Chris Wallace? He certainly fell from the tree. His father must be so ashamed of his reich-wing politics.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am