Jindal Sides With Limbaugh On Whether He Wants Obama To Fail: ‘It Depends’
Jindal Sides With Limbaugh On Whether He Wants Obama To Fail: ‘It Depends’
Yesterday, as President Obama was delivering his second press conference, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) spoke at the NRCC’s largest fundraiser of the year to an audience of more than 1,200 Republicans — including prominent luminaries like House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH).
In his speech, Jindal turned to one of the major issues facing the GOP: whether it agrees with Rush Limbaugh’s statement that he wants Obama to fail. Without mentioning Limbaugh, Jindal criticized the recent focus on the remarks, claiming that anyone who disagrees with President Obama is treated as committing “treason.” On whether he personally wants Obama to fail, Jindal simply said, “it depends“:
Make no mistake, anything other than an immediate and compliant – “why no sir, I don’t want the President to fail” is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience, or political obstructionism. This is political correctness run amok. [...]
I will not be brow beaten on this, and I will not kow-tow to their political correctness. We will be the loyal opposition. So… my answer to the question is very simple — “Do you want the President to fail?” It depends on what he is trying to do.
Jindal added, “I want him to succeed,” but only if Obama will “cut taxes on job providers, reduce our national debt, stop the massive explosion of government spending, make good on his promise to seek earmark reforms…and act in a truly bi-partisan fashion.”
Just weeks ago, however, before he gave his widely-panned response to Obama’s address to Congress, Jindal took a more constructive tone. Breaking with the Limbaugh line, Jindal told reporters outside the White House that everyone should want Obama to succeed:
“I think every American is incredibly proud by the president’s personal story, the fact that we will be seeing him addressing his first joint session of Congress,” Jindal said after governors met with Obama on Monday. “We absolutely — Republicans or Democratic governors — we want our president to succeed. When we disagree with him, we will certainly offer alternative ideas and solutions,” he added.
Jindal has previously offered great praise for Limbaugh. “I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about,” he said earlier this month. After previously deviating from Limbaugh and the right wing, Jindal is — like all the others — lurching back towards Boss Limbaugh.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Let’s not monitor those volcano’s either.
¶ AIO
March 25th, 2009 at 1:20 pmNo, Bobbeh – you are the DIS-loyal opposition. There’s an important difference.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:21 pmsaccharine little brown-nose.
how’s that for not kow-towing to political correctness?????
March 25th, 2009 at 1:22 pmThe last thing anyone cares about is what the Indian version of Mr. Rogers wants, thinks or needs.
With his pathetic rebuttal speech, this clown sealed his fate.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:22 pmwe will certainly offer alternative ideas and solutions….?
And what would those be Bobby?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot, you got nothing.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:23 pmcut taxes on job providers,
No, cut taxes on job performers.
reduce our national debt,
OK, in due time.
stop the massive explosion of government spending,
Again, in due time.
make good on his promise to seek earmark reforms
You go first, you and your fellow Republicans. Then we’ll believe you are serious about this issue.
act in a truly bi-partisan fashion
March 25th, 2009 at 1:24 pmNot as long as your Party of “NO” won’t bring ideas to the table that are proven failures of the past.
“I will not be brow beaten on this, and I will not kow-tow to their political correctness. Unless your name is Rush Limbaugh — then, feel free to brow beat and I will certainly kow-tow.”
By the way, I wonder if these cretins know that “kow-tow” is a racist slur against Chinese born in the gold fields of the 1800’s? Why does Bobby Jindahl hate Asian-Americans?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pmSrsly, I’d be keeping quiet about now, Jindal.
Thank goodness for volcano monitoring, Mount Jindal is erupting.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pmUmmm…a bit inelegant in #7; the slur was born in the gold fields of the 1800’s, not the Chinese people…
Mea maxima culpa.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pms/b “not proven failures of the past” or, better, “continues to bring ideas to the table that are proven failures of the past”
Must. Edit. First.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pmWhether it’s three years or twenty-three years from now, when Jindal gets around to his presidential run, I hope he’ll be asked many about his embrace of Catholicism, and why he believes that religion is superior to evangelical Protestantism.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:27 pmJindal added, “I want him to succeed,” but only if Obama will “cut taxes on job providers, reduce our national debt, stop the massive explosion of government spending, make good on his promise to seek earmark reforms…and act in a truly bi-partisan fashion.”
In other words, Jindal wants Obama to succeed only if he acts like a Republican — aside from, of course, the “reduce the national debt”, the “stop the massive explosion of government”, the “make good on promise to seek earmark reforms” and the “act in a truly bi-partisan fashion” bits. Those aren’t really hallmarks of republican behavior. Republican rhetoric — yes. But we all know that Republican rhetoric almost never matches Republican action.
But the “cut taxes of ‘job providers’” — that’s acting like a Republican.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pmThe Republican leadership is truly childish.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pmOh, and BTW Rushpublicans, it looks like things are starting to get better — the market’s up strongly again, housing sales rose dramatically in February… Your worst fears are coming true — Obama’s plans are actually succeeding.
Perhaps it’s time for you all to move to another country where you can rain ruin down upon them? Oh that’s right — you’ve already done that to Iraq and Afghanistan…
March 25th, 2009 at 1:30 pmYou know, he has no good ideas on his own. He can only say: no.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:31 pmJindal/Palin 2012!!!!!!!!!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:31 pmBoy’s some kinda fuggin nut.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pmbobby,
i want you to succeed on
your next exorcism.
why?
because i want satan to fail.
+
March 25th, 2009 at 1:33 pmZooey Says:
Jindal/Palin 2012!!!!!!!!!
and
ted nugent for head of fema!
*
“you’re doin’ a heckuva job nugie!”
::
March 25th, 2009 at 1:34 pmJingle-Bobby Jindal once AGAIN strikes just the right note.
It wouldn’t bother me a lot if the GOPuke party confined itself/was confined to the South.
What with the global climate shifts–which they deny, helpfully–we can just leave ‘em alone and watch evolution–which they deny, helpfully–work its magic at high temperatures…
March 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm“I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives.”
I have to agree with Little Bobby. I think Limpballs is a great leader for conservatives, too.
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that Limpballs is a real peach of a guy . . . except for three things:
1. the BS he manufactures and presents as “facts”
2. the conclusions that he draws from his bogus “facts”
3. and the opinions that he tries to support in the process
By the way, that little piss-ant, Markie Levine, is on Limpballs’ rant-fest this morning promoting his rag — er, book. Things must really be getting bad for these rant-jockeys . . . they have signed “mutual-aid pacts” and are all huddling together in the corner these days.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:37 pmSo… my answer to the question is very simple — “Do you want the President to fail?” It depends on what he is trying to do.
Oh, didn’t anyone tell you? HE IS TRYING TO SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM THE DISASTER CREATED BY REPUBLICANS!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:38 pmZooey Says:
Jindal/Palin 2012!!!!!!!!!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Or Palin/Huckabee
Or Palin/Perkins (Tony has ambitions)
Huckabee’s gonna be in there, as the “sane” theocrat.
If things get measurably worse–if there ARE breadlines, and soup-kitchens, and the like–then all bets are off.
There’s already a whiff of Weimar in the air…
March 25th, 2009 at 1:38 pmken melvin Says:
Boy’s some kinda fuggin nut.
Lug nut? When loose, the wheels fall off.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pmI think Rush is a great leader for conservatives.
I couldn’t agree more. Clueless, cowardly, rich, talentless, cerebrally-challenged, and pasty-white – Carbuncle Boy is ideal.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pmshoeless — nailed it.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pmFuture generations will wonder how we ever tolerated Republicans.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:43 pmShorter Jindal: If Obama were a Republican President, I’d support him.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:44 pmSo, while President was giving the most important economic press conference since FDR was president, the Republicans were busy collecting money from their fat cat friends and speechifying about whether or not they want another Great Depression.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:44 pmFuture generations will wonder who the republicans were.
The circular firing squad reloads.
RIP GOP
March 25th, 2009 at 1:45 pmJindal. Palin. Not Joe the not plumber.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:45 pmWow. The Rethuglican party certainly has stars lined up for the 2012 run.
Of the confederacy.
The more that stupid REpublicans kowtow to their Supreme Idiot, the Rush of Limburger, the sooner that this Goofy Old Party of No will go extinct. R.I.P., G.O.P….
March 25th, 2009 at 1:46 pm>Jindal criticized the recent
> focus on the remarks, claiming
> that anyone who disagrees
> with President Obama is
> treated as committing “treason.”
Welcome to our world for the past 8 years, bobby/purjiv or whatever you real name your too embarassed to let your nazi buddies know about is.
Speaking of “treason” I wonder how he feels about MAnnorexia Coulters book of the same name accusing liberals of treason for well..being liberals and beleiving we have constitutional rights.
I would never accuse someone of treason simply because they wanted a president to fail…lord knows i wanted bush to fail, but only because I knew he’s a failure (and always has been) and I wanted it to happen with as little collateral damage to the world as possible..
But these days, I would argue that some of these republicans are acting treasonous because they are either actively trying to sabatoge and damage this country and its political system, or are taking it a step further and advocating armed insurrection…like that fruitcake Bachman…
March 25th, 2009 at 1:46 pm“Do you want the President to fail?” It depends on what he is trying to do.”
If it involves helping the nation to recover from this recession, absolutely not.
Right? You pencil necked geek!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:49 pm>cut taxes on job providers,
yeah bobby, so they can provide more jobs…in INDIA….conflict of interest much, mr Jindal?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:50 pmLeader El Rush Blo Limbaugh the Hutt says deport all drug addicts – except him.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:50 pmIf we did what the repugs wanted we would be repugs. Where is the biparisan, stiffy.
Thank God President Obama Made It Clear Last Night… Fifty-One Percent Is A Majority.
booby is so stange, fake and goofy besides being a repug.
Oh yeah, and a liar.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pmYes, let’s not forget Joe Not The Plumber. He will obviously be their Secretary of State, since Pajama TV sent him to Israel, so he could stand on a hill and see Gaza in the distance.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pmAlso nailed it.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pmanyone who disagrees with President Obama is treated as committing “treason.”
A step up from the Bush admin where anyone who disagreed was accused of treason. Not to mention living in peril of extraordinary rendition without habeus.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pmWell, I dont have a problem with cutting taxes on businesses if they GET of government and STOP lobbying for their special interests and buying off politicians with campaign funding and using the government as a source for corporate welfare [bailouts and subsidies] and personifying corporations.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:53 pmShould business be taxed for the billions, if not trillions in bailouts for business?
You bet.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:54 pm.
Dear Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA),
I though criticizing the president in a time of war was a deal breaker?
IOKIYR
.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:55 pmI wonder if Tom Daschle is listening?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:55 pmJindal added, “I want him to succeed,” but only if Obama will “cut taxes on job providers, reduce our national debt, stop the massive explosion of government spending, make good on his promise to seek earmark reforms…and act in a truly bi-partisan fashion.”
Absolute arrogance. The only one thing on this list 8 years of Republican control managed was the first and then they sat back as American jobs were shipped to cheap overseas markets.
There is a massive vacuum in DC but hopefully it can remain contained between the ears of these clowns.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:56 pmLet’s face facts, people: Republicans want Obama to fail. They’re in a pickle because even they understand that it’s unpatriotic to want to see the nation plunged further into economic turmoil, but that’s their only hope to regain relevance.
Put simply: if the economy improves, Obama will get the credit.
Limbaugh cannot abide that. Nor can most Republicans, because they are, after all, Party Before Country.
Therefore, Limbaugh is certainly hoping for deeper economic disaster, and so are most Republicans. Limbaugh is the only one who will come out and admit it.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:56 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
>cut taxes on job providers,
yeah bobby, so they can provide more jobs…in INDIA….conflict of interest much, mr Jindal?
they pay little or no taxes as it is.
hey booby how many jobs did NO create? What’s the matter taxes remain the same as we chat.
Do something tangible for your state and STFU.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:56 pmLimbaughs screed against Newt Gingrich almost sounds like a perfect description of the confused Mr. Jindal:
March 25th, 2009 at 1:56 pmRush, “They are fly-by-night operators, and most of them stand for nothing until they see a poll about what the American people want, and then they go out and try to say one way or another what the American people want while trying to falsely hold onto an ideology at the same time — and you can’t count on them. You can’t depend on them. They will sell you out; they will throw you overboard to save themselves, faster than anything. And they’ll use you on their way up as often as they can at the same time.”
The most aggravating part of this is that there is sooooo darn much evidence out there that these people are not only lying, they are deliberately lying. They are spewing rants with no factual basis and calling for the failure and collapse of the US.
And they still get air time they don’t have to pay for. They should be relegated to the 2am infomercials, not news.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:03 pmIts pretty sad when a political parties only way to win is to hope for failure…this means, to me, they have no new ideas, nothing to offer, ideologically bankrupt.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pmI remember back in 1991, when Saddam invaded Kuwait (with the implied permission of the U.S., but that’s another rant for another thread), H.W. Bush took the matter to Congress to get approval for a counter invasion to liberate Kuwait from Iraq.
There was some opposition. There was some discussion. There was some debate. But in the end, Congress voted to let Bush41 go in.
Once that decision was made, I recall that the Democrats who opposed the idea got on board with it. If we were going to invade, they hoped we would succeed. In fact, they prayed for success along with the original supporters. Because failure wasn’t anything anybody wanted. Why in the world would anyone hope for failure once the commitment had been made?
When Bush planned to invade Iraq, I thought it was a bone-headed idea. But once “shock and awe” happened, I fervently hoped for success — that we would quickly achieve our objective and get out of there intact without creating a cluster%@$k. Hoping for failure would have meant hoping for the situation we ultimately got. Who would want that?
Which is why I don’t understand how the Republicans who hope for Obama’s failure can call themselves patriots. If Obama says, “I want this stimulus package” or “I want this budget” and you have opposition to the idea, fine. Discuss it. Debate it. Vote against it. But once the vote is cast and the commitment is made, get on board and hope it succeeds. No favors are done to the country by obstruction and sabotage once the flight plan is filed and the plane has taken off. There are some people who might think that throwing the country into the crapper just to enhance their party’s chances next election is a good idea, but hopefully more reasonable heads will prevail.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pmThe only thing they offer is crisis management, get the people all worked into a tizzy so they can offer some lame, and very often ineffective legislation [cure]
We saw it with Iraq. Yellow Cake!! Flying Sheep! Aluminum tubes! Mushroom clouds!!
And this crisis creation is now costing thousands of lives, PTSD, brain injuries, suicides and billions in not trillions in dollars of debt.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:14 pmBTW can some Limbaugh acolyte tell me what ideas Limbaugh actually has? Everytime I listen to him its just finger pointing, demonizing, rattling of paper, and folks, we have got to stop this!
Blame and hate dont cure problems they exacerbate them.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pmMake no mistake, anything other than an immediate and compliant – “why no sir, I don’t want the President to fail” is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience, or political obstructionism.
Interestingly enough, during the last 8 years, when one questioned the president’s policies and procedures for war, 9/11, the economy, torture, illegal spying, outing a covert CIA agent, response for natural disasters, …etc, it was us who were being treated as “some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience, or political obstructionism”.
It reminds me of the unfaithful husband. During his philandering, it was okay. But when there’s a hint of accusation from the wife, he diverts it and unjustifiably labels her the adulterer!
March 25th, 2009 at 2:19 pmBeautifully said, missmolly.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pmAgain, we’re at war, and the opposition party wants the Commander in Chief to fail.
Sounds like Jindal is giving aid and support to the enemy!
The scary thing is, folks, is that the Republican Party believes it can ascend to power by this kind of talk, and by obstructing everything Obama wants to achieve. And roughly 1/3 of the country believes whatever they tell them.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pmtpoopfly,
March 25th, 2009 at 2:22 pmYou do realize that if PRESIDENT OBAMA (show some respect you mucking foron) fails, the country fails.
Why do you hate your country?
tpoopfly,
March 25th, 2009 at 2:24 pmWhere were you when we disagreed with President Bush?
Oh yeah, labeling us traitors!
Okay, I’ll bite.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pmWhat alternative plan do you have for the people of the country, when PRESIDENT OBAMA fails???
See misshusseinmolly’s comment at #51.
No one says you have to AGREE with the President.
But what the president is trying to do is revive the economy. You’re perfectly free to disagree with his proposals to accomplish this, but to push that further and hope that they fail? That’s childish.
Given the implications of failure to reverse this economic crisis, one would assume that all Americans would hope for success.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pmtpafla Says: What is wrong with hoping that Obama fails at what he trying to do if you don’t agree with it? Why does EVERYONE have to agree with what Obama?
Disagreeing with some legislation or policy is one thing and there are things I dont agree with. But hoping for total failure doesnt have anything to do with policy but about how you feel about the person himself.
Lets take Limbaugh for example, he doesnt really care about the policies, he will disagree with all of them because he is letting his emotions, his bias, stand in the way of logic.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pmlol, this tpafla troll is really silly
hyper-partisan and wishing for failure and more problems
right wing cowards are so childish
March 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pmtpafla Says:
So now all of a sudden Americans are not allowed to disagree with the president?
“Hope he fails” does not equal “disagree with”.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pmThat’s admirable. But many, many of your political brethren did.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pmtpoopfly Says:
DrxJ
Never did I once call anyone that disagreed with Bush a traitor. Never!
Really? Because the majority of your cohorts did.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pmAnd their leaders.
51 misshusseinmolly
You put it better than anyone ever could in the media with that one. PERFECT.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pmSo, because you never did it, that means none of the Republicans did it either?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:28 pmtpafla is the type that would overturn the chess board as soon as he started losing (of course, if he took the time to realize that it is Chess and not Checkers, he might not lose so quickly)
sad little ignorant coward – a/k/a – a Rushpublican
March 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pmOh, I don’t now if I agree with that, X.
I think with Limbaugh, logic doesn’t even enter the picture. I think it’s all emotion-driven.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pmI hope you fail.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:30 pmMaybe what he’s trying to do is get the economy back on track. WHY would any American want that to fail?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:30 pmBecause they are willing to see their fellow Americans starve to death, if it means their party can return to power.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:31 pmAnd for those who’d like him to fail, how would you suggest we get economic recovery under way. Without the usual cut taxes for businesses who don’t pay any anyway and the wealthy ( we already tried that, remember? Didn’t work out so well did it?)…
March 25th, 2009 at 2:31 pmNRCC- fundraising arm of the Republican Congressional members.
They couldn’t follow basic fiduciary responsibilities for over 5 years. CFO Chris Ward stole from donors for his personal gain. Republican Congressmen govern organizations like they governed the country. The NRCC Board failure was criminal.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:31 pmtpoopfly,
March 25th, 2009 at 2:31 pmYou do realize that I don’t agree with everything President Obama has to offer, don’t you?
Because, there’s one thing I’ve learned by being a progressive, and that’s never to accept lock and step everything the president does. That would be considered ‘not thinking on one’s own’
Something the 23%’ers can’t say.
How does America avoid failing if her leader’s policies fail?
You’re gonna have to explain that one.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pmWhat the hell does that mean?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pmWhere do I begin?
Let’s see, if Obama succeeds, the economy rebounds, we wean ourselves off foreign oil and become energy independent, our stature in the world is restored, and we have peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Are those worthwhile goals? I believe so.
But if you disagree with those goals, then you have the right to oppose Obama’s policies.
Now, if you agree with those goals, why would you hope Obama fails? The only possible explanation is that you put partisan politics first and foremost.
No one has to agree with Obama. This is not about whether you agree with Obama or not, this is about whether you hope Obama fails to achieve his goals and create a better America for you and your offspring.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pmI never wanted bus to ’succeed.’
From the election on, I did everything within the law to see that he didn’t ’succeed.’
I, of course, was impotent in such matters.
But I NEVER EVER EVER wanted Bush to succeed at ANYTHING. I wanted him to shit his pants when he tried to pee. I wanted hime to fall into the ditch when he rode his bike. I wanted him to be snake-bit while clearing brush. I wanted his wars to fail, I wanted his torture regime to fail, I wanted his overthrow of the Constitution to fail, I wanted his privatization of the commons to fail, i wanted his packing of the courts with flying-monkeys to fail, I wanted his faith-baxsed initiatives to fail.
I WANTED GODDAMN GEORGE F#CKING W BUSH TO FAIL!
March 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pmtpafla,
March 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pmI would love to hear you and the “loyal opposition” answer #63. Because I dont think most of you have thought that far…
tpoopfly,
March 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pmAgain, I’ll ask.
If PRESIDENT OBAMA policies fail (as you wish), what alternatives are you planning.
Because, you can’t right a sinking ship if you hope it submerges faster.
What he is trying to do is to save the country from another Great Depression. You don’t agree with that?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pmThis is the standard tactic of these folks — try to equate “hope for failure” with “disagreement”, as gummitch pointed out.
Tell me, tpafla, did you bother to read what misshusseinmolly posted at #51?
She said it better than anyone else has. Give it a read.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pmThey just think there are better ways.
Elaborate, please.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pmtpafla Says
March 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Saying that you Obama to fail is not the same thing as saying you want America to fail. Obama’s policies are worth failing. But when you think that the president is the country, I think you are pretty much toast.
______________________________________________________
Tell me, when you fly somewhere, do you ever want the pilot to fail while wanting the plane to succeed? Obama’s piloting the plane with a LOT of our money. If he goes down, we all go down with him.
You don’t have to like his flight plan. You may even have some misgivings that it might not work. But that’s a far cry from “hoping” he will fail, as that would result in our country being worse off than it is now. Why are you hoping for that?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pmtpafla Says: Xis.
Thanks for some reason. Ok then disagreeing with policies and wanting them to fail is ok, nobody want America to fail.
=)
Lets take the bank bailouts started under Dubyas TARP plan, for example. I dont think bailing out investment banks and AIG is a good policy/legislation. I dont want that policy to fail but think it isnt feasible and it will likely fail on its own. I think, personally those derivatives should be declared null and void instead of selling them to the government [taxpayer] and creating more debt.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pmJindal like all conservatives will go whichever way is popular, as in palin in the bridge fiasco. Underestimating thinking liberals and maybe a few conservatives who are sick of their party’s guttersniping.
limbaugh will continue his crap, he is a total racist from head to toe. He is so jealous of President Obama’s intelligence, popularity he can’t even see straight.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:38 pmO.K. what does President Obama “failing” look like during the biggest global economic crisis of all time? And who suffers?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pmactually, I had fervently hoped that Bush would STOP FAILING, but he kept right on
March 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pmOh dear missmolly, you’ve brought a level headed, easy to understand scenario for tpoopfly to refute.
Prepared to be ignored.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pmSo strange that the voices were quiet when bush enlarged government without benefit to taxpayers. That bush left a huge deficit not even counting the war expense, that bush purposely left OUT of the budget each year. Where was the rightous indignation then ?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pmThese are the same people whose policies drove us into this ditch in the first place. I wouldn’t put too much stock in what they have to say.
“Disagree with how Obama is going about making America succeed” is not the same thing as “wanting America to fail”, but you keep trying to imply that they are the same thing.
Lots of people disagree with how Obama is going about making America succeed — including many progressives. But most of us hope he succeeds.
A select few actively hope he fails, because, as I said above, let’s face facts; if the economy rebounds, however he does it, Obama will get the credit. If he implements his “offending” policies and the economy rebounds, conservatism will be dealt a crippling blow.
Therefore those adherents to conservative philosophies (of which you seem to be one) are reduced to hoping that he fails, that the nation is plunged into even worse economic circumstances. It’s the only way their political philosophy will regain any credibility.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pmtpafla,
March 25th, 2009 at 2:42 pmIt’s called medicine…
… Take it!
This argument is only a subjective distraction.
Of course it depends.
If you are a progressive during a republican administration, you would (or should) want that Republican President to fail to implement a policy that you disagree with.
For example: If a Republican president wanted to somehow overturn Roe v. Wade, you sould want him to fail to do that. Because you believe an America without Roe v. Wade is worse, not better.
Everyone wants our leadership to succeed in making the U.S. and the World a better place. That’s pretty easy.
But, as they say, the devil’s in the details. The subjectivity is how it becomes a better place.
Someone like Limbaugh can generally say that he hopes Obama fails, because his is diametrically opposed to pretty much everything Obama wants to do. He believes that Obama’s ideas will make the country worse off, not better.
I personally agree with many of President Obama’s ideas. On those issues, I hope he succeeds. On the other hand, there are issues that I disagree with. I don’t see how I can genuinely hope that he succeed on those issues, if I believe that success would result in a worse, and not a better, America.
I generally support Obama. But, I recognize that he is not perfect. Although, I believe much of his agenda will improve our situation, it doesn’t make sense to me to pretend that I hope he succeeds in accomplishing those initiatives that I think would harm the country.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:43 pmtpfla said: Ralph, some people think that if Obama’s plans succeed than that would make America fail.
What plan[s], specifically are you referring to?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:43 pmThis is a cop-out.
get used to teh idea that Obama will implement a lot of ideas that you will disagree with.
Once they are implemented, do you still hope for their failure?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pmget smart people around him> > ? That’s all you got?
Geez.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pmRantingTommy,
LMFAO!
Yes, where would this country be if Bush had ever been successful?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pmWell, thousands upon thousands would be alive today!
tpafla Says:It does not mean that people that do not agree with Obama’s plans want America to fail. They just think there are better ways.
And since the Republicans have not brought forth a single new idea on how to fix what they broke, they aren’t offering better ways. They are obstructing and looking for the US to finish the slide into the toilet the Republicans started.
And if the President’s ideas fail and the republicans are offering no alternative, will they stand up and claim they succeeded? Can they shrug off that much rubble?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pmtpoopfly Says:
I have to go. Enjoying the convo with some rational people.
Still googling for CONservative policies if PRESIDENT OBAMA’s fails, I see.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:45 pmTo be honest, you do kinda post like a crazy person. I know it’s a schtick, but not everyone does.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:45 pmThanks for your concern, b-cup.
Unfortunately, you’ve been peddling this same stale bread for weeks now, and no one is buying it. I see you’ve added a little yeast to the recipe, but it still tastes of the sewer water you use to make the batter.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:46 pmbush failed despite our hoping he would stop failing
obama will succeed despite right wingers hoping he will fail
March 25th, 2009 at 2:46 pmtpafla,
If Obama’s economic plans pull America out of the dumps, that’s what is called a success. America prospers and everybody wins. NO?
So, what ethics are you driving at that suggests seeing America prosper again is a failure?
Or are you more attracted to seeing America fail and not pull itself out of the crapper just to prove you right? Then, who prospers from that?
.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pmtpafla Says: NOOOOOOO! I want him to figure out what has worked in the past and get a lot of really smart people around him and make it work.
And he should be paying attention to the Republicans who are whining because they broke their toy because?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pmWait.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pmb-cup says it’s okay to wish CERTAIN policies fail.
Which policies do the right wish to fail? And the subsequent alternative?
Because all I hear is “Yes, I want President Obama to fail” – Oxybreath.
.
Dear backedup,
Take a laxative ALREADY!
.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:49 pmralph. Once Bush had got congressional approval to go to war with Iraq, did you jump on the bandwagon and help promote success?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:50 pmHey b-cup, riddle me this.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:51 pmWhat will you and your ilk provide when President Obama’s policies fail?
What alternatives for a plan that will stimulate money into the economy, provide better education, create more jobs, and help us become less reliant of oil?
Because, when asking for President Obama to fail, you’re asking for the above goals to not be reached.
.
Why are the delirious (R)ushaholics wishin’ failure…
… Bush already delivered the Nation that failure.
.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pmDRxJ Says,
Still googling for CONservative policies if PRESIDENT OBAMA’s fails, I see.
Yeah, he never got back to you on that one. Because there seem to be none, other than NO….
March 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm!!! GOAL POST ALERT !!!
!!! GOAL POST ALERT !!!
PLEASE PREPARE FOR IT’S MOVEMENT!
backup Says:
ralph. Once Bush had got congressional approval to go to war with Iraq, did you jump on the bandwagon and help promote success?
!!! PLEASE PRECEDE TO THE NEAREST “CLINTON DID IT TO” ARGUMENT !!!
March 25th, 2009 at 2:53 pmI think the real reason the Republicans want President Obama to fail is because if he manages to implement his ideas (and listens to those coming from America) things like wealthy Wall Streeters, Health insurance companies, Oil companies will all see their little sandbox get cleaned out some and the US just might join the growing number of nations in the world who are trying to establish a rational, stable and fair environment for humanity and society to work and grow in.
The US is the last bastion of 19th century corporate piracy and the Republicans just can’t strike the Jolly Roger.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:54 pmPerry logan Says:
Future generations will wonder how we ever tolerated Republicans.
Or why.
PEACE
March 25th, 2009 at 2:55 pm.
Dear backedup,
I wished that Bush was correct about Saddam…
… But he lied instead.
I wished it would be 6 days, 6 weeks, not more than 6 months…
… And it’s been 6 years and going.
I wished he’d Preserve and Defend the Constitution…
… But he shredded it instead.
Need I go on?
.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:55 pmSo Iraq is now a success?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:56 pmWhen did those darn pesky WMD show up, anyways?
DRxJ. Here’s one that I hope fails:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html?_r=1
I think giving our executive the power to decide what people should earn, sets a bad precedent of too much government involvement in the private sector.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pmDRxJ, if you believe Cheney, be careful checking your mail box. WMD’s are like the Publisher’s Clearing House…any day now.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pmThe more you believe that progressive ideas are a prerequisite to our future success, the more likely you would view someone that opposed or obstructed those efforts as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
Conversely, if you believe that those same progressive ideas are not the key to our future prosperity, but actually an impediment; you are more likely to see the same opposition or obstruction as a patriotic duty.
The point is, that determination is subjective. Dependent on your political ideology.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pmbackup, first off, I really enjoyed your posts on the Iran bloggers thread. But I’m a little confused by what you’re saying here.
After 9/11, I remember wanting our government to get the guy who hit us. I didn’t hope for failure. In fact, I don’t remember any credible voice on the left said they hoped W. failed at capturing or killing OBL.
Do you think the current economic crisis constitutes an existential threat to American hegemony? Is it more of a threat than 9/11 or less? If it’s possible that this crisis could do more overall damage to America than OBL did on 9/11, why would you accept Republicans rooting for Obama to fail so this damage can take place?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:58 pmDRxJ,
March 25th, 2009 at 2:59 pmIt’ll be a success when the surge works to establish a political reconciliation…
… When, and still waiting.
How about this:
Did progressives support the ’surge’?
Did progressives hope that the ’surge’ succeeded?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pm.
Dear backedup,
I wish Bush had stayed in Tora Bora…
… But he did what his father should have done 50+ years earlier and pulled out.
.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pmbackup says: I think giving our executive the power to decide what people should earn, sets a bad precedent of too much government involvement in the private sector.
So it should be left in the hands of CEO’s who subscribe to Reagan Hoodoo? They make 400 times what anyone in the company makes and because they do it trickles down to the plant floor?
Or do they close the plant, send the jobs to Indonesia and run off to Aruba with the cash?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:02 pm“I think giving our executive the power to decide what people should earn, sets a bad precedent of too much government involvement in the private sector.”
Backup, when it’s taxpayer bailout money that’s paying those executives (no one is “decid(ing) what people” in general “should earn”), I sure want a say in how much they ‘earn’.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:02 pmRantingTommy Says:
actually, I had fervently hoped that Bush would STOP FAILING, but he kept right on
March 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Everything The Prez is (apparently) tying to undo is a Bush success.
Tax breaks for the rich? A HUGE Bush success.
War on two fronts? A MONSTROUS Bush success.
Widening global climate crisis? A MAJOR Bush Success.
The disappearance of privacy? A TERRIFIC Bush success.
You just don’t define success properly. Your mistake is to think that ’success’ relate to the condition of the people. It doesn’t. It relates to the comfort of the Elites.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:02 pm!!! MASSIVE GOAL POST ALERT !!!
!!! MASSIVE GOAL POST ALERT !!!
backup Says:
How about this:
Did progressives support the ’surge’?
Did progressives hope that the ’surge’ succeeded?
!!! PLEASE PRECEDE TO THE NEAREST PELOSI INDUCED RECESSION ARGUMENT !!!
March 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pmI didn’t “jump on the bandwagon and help promote success”, no. But I did hope for success in Iraq, which is, after all, what we’re talking about, right? “Hoping for success”?
Nice try at moving the goal posts again.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pmbackup Says:How about this:
Did progressives support the ’surge’?
I, for one, did not support the original idea of invasion. Nor did I support the surge.
The more important question is, did the surge (and the invasion) happen?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pmRight on misshusseinmolly, you said it best for me.
i remember about 2-3 months before the Iraq invasion started, having a strong internal debate with myself. as a retired Naval officer, was i willing to go beyond just emails/p-c to the WH & Congress, letters to editors about NOT invading iraq. ( i made myself a vocal active pest, determined to not look back and say “i should have done more” int trying to stop what was an obvious long term strategic blunder for the US)
i was actually contemplating taking part in an anti-war protest. ( this is a big thing for those of us in the military….but the stakes were high)
then i realized it was a done deal, already decided. the bush admin was just going thru the motions of getting anyone’s approval, waiting for the UN or the inspectors on the ground we were committed.
the only thing left was to get on board and support our troops and our nation. as an american, there was no other choice. we had to succeed.
now i look around and wonder. we are in a national, no, worldwide crisis. real people are hurting. it is a time for working together to solve some major problems.
and yet mbrs of the GOP are actively hoping the new admin’s plans will fail. wishing for the other side’s failure as a way to regain support reflects a complete lack of ideas of their own, not to mention a serious ethical shortfall. they offer no strategy of their own.
they do this primarily as a way of actively positioning themselves as possible contenders in 2012. we are 2 months ( 2 months!!) into a new administration. but it’s all about regaining power.
tell me again how much republicans love their country?
i used to swear an oath to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. the oath was sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, not to support at all costs the interests of a political party.
i say F— these tea parties! let’s start having ‘America 1st’ parties, all citizens welcome.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pmThe best thing that ever helped us to foster support for our side is when those two idiots opened their mouths. Even when shown the fools that they are, they persist. I almost feel sorry for Conservatives. Almost. This is too much easy fun – just sit back and they do all the work for us. What a country.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:05 pm.
Dear backedup,
Which came first…
… The LIES about WMD’s and imminent threats?
… Or the surge to keep the pawns in place?
In other words, by the time the surge came around, our presence already had a damning effect both in Iraq and through casualties of our troops. By then, we knew the lies and we had had enough!
.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:06 pmb-cup still can’t get the difference between “working to oppose policies” and “hoping for failure”. He still thinks they’re the same thing.
I’m afraid he never will get it.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:07 pmButtercup, the Invasion was wrong. Criminal. Obscene.
I opposed it, and the afghanistan one, as well. And I have opposed everything which stemmed out from the original illegal, criminal, immoral, invidious events.
I don’t oppose a criminal act and then, when it has happened anyway, decide to support what follows to cover it up.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:07 pmI think there should be a national cap on earnings at about a million dollars per year.
nobody NEEDS more than that.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pmbackup, a 79% shareholder should have a say in the salaries of personnel as well as the firing of ineffective boneheads who ran the company into the ground in the first place.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pmbackup Says:
How about this:
Did progressives support the ’surge’? Speaking for myself, no. But the reason was because at the time we as a nation were debating about having or not having a timeline for withdrawl, and Bush flipped the argument to when and how many troops to surge.
Did progressives hope that the ’surge’ succeeded? Anytime our troops are put in harm’s way, especially when no clear mission is defined, I hope for their safe return. But we never should have been in Iraq to have negotiated a “surge” in the first place!
PEACE
March 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pmtpoopfly,
March 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm1) I thought you were gone.
2) You are not under any authority to ask us a question, when you’ve FAILED to answer any of ours. Care to discuss alternative plans to Obama’s???
Right on, tokin librul.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pmPiyush Jindal is the same Republican bullshit from a different Republican package.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pmdo you majically(sic> want it to succeed because it’s Obama now? Or because you thought it was a good plan to begin with even when it was Bush’s plan?
that’s one of the things that those of who oppose the bail-out oppose most about it, and what worries those of us who are skeptical about Obama’s bona fides as a populist or a progressive.
You’ll find a lotta kool-aid spilled around here.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:12 pmtpafla Says:
I have another question. Now that we found out that Obama/Geithner plan is to bailout banks which was the Bush plan orignally with a few tweeks, do you majically want it to succeed because it’s Obama now? Or because you thought it was a good plan to begin with even when it was Bush’s plan
Little buddy, if you think that everybody here agrees with everything the President does…never mind, you’ve already shown thinking isn’t your long suit.
What the general consensus is, let the man work. Then we’ll see.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pmthere’s a graph i saw the other day that suggests that declining Murkin prosperity tracks almost one-to-one on the decline in the highest marginal tax rates…
March 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pmtokin librul Says:
I think there should be a national cap on earnings at about a million dollars per year.
nobody NEEDS more than that.
Not I.
One can earn as much as one wants as long as they pay their fair taxes and it’s 100% revenue.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:15 pmTrollspotter.
I believe that I don’t do a very good job of making the point on this topic. Mainly, because no one understands what I’m saying.
My problem is that I believe what I’m trying to say, absolutely.
I do not understand how we can say that we hope something succeeds, if we think that idea is wrong. If we believe that idea will result in a worse, and not a better situation.
I’m trying to give examples of positions that progressives would work against (or have worked against) to show that opposition has been appropriate in the past and is appropriate today.
I agree that people should not obstruct Obama solely for the reason they want him to fail. Opposition should be based on what is believed to be in the best interest of the country.
But, who decides that? It is a subjective argument. What Limbaugh thinks is good for the country is different from what I think is good, which is different from what you think is good.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:15 pmtpoopfly,
March 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pmcan I ask you a question without all your rhetorical non answers? I really hope you don’t talk to people that might have different view on things this way in real life. But my question is- who was the first president you voted for?
Yes, I want it to “magically” succeed, if that’s going to be the plan, because the nation depends on the economy succeeding.
I don’t think it’s a great plan, and I didn’t think it was a great plan when something similar was proposed by the Bush administration.
But even when the Bush administration pushed their version of the plan, I hoped it would succeed.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pmIf you want someone’s policy to fail, you state the policy. If you want a president to fail, you want disaster—the drug of choice for the GOP.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pmI heard they are working on a plan to cut taxes for the rich, deregulate financial institutes, and open more free trade to China.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pmBut let me give you a scenario?Let’s pretend you invented a really popular gaget or wrote a really wonderful book or went to school and became a brilliant scholar. Do you think you should cap your success at a million?
Silly question for yours, if you had a million dollars a year (guaranteed for life by your accomplishment) why would $100 million make you ‘more’ of a success? How many cars can you drive? How many homes can you live in?
Are you your wallet?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pmtpafla Says:
I have another question.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
No, you don’t get to ask another question until you answer the many previous questions from DRxJ (#63 & #92), Xisithrus (#116), Misshusseinmolly (#99), shoeless (#94) and RUCerious (#97.)
March 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pmThe GOoPers are fully committed to the failure of the Obama Administration. They know that they are done forever if all those “evil libruls” actually manage to fix some of the worst damage.
In fact, they’ve graduated from mere obstruction (see McConell railing against a bill while claiming “no one has even read it”) to sabotage (see GOP governors refusing funds that may actually help people) and treason (see Michelle Bachmann inciting armed rebellion against the lawful government of our nation).
As despicable and idiotic as the GOP base may be, there are clever people calling the shots. And those clever people will move mountains to thwart progressive policies.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pmBut let me give you a scenario?Let’s pretend you invented a really popular gaget or wrote a really wonderful book or went to school and became a brilliant scholar. Do you think you should cap your success at a million?
Personally, I measure my success (when I have any), by the approval of my peers (when there are any).
Neither success nor righteousness is measured by the amount of money you have. That’s a pure accident of fate.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pmJane. I think they are now talking about any private sector business that could affect the economy, not just those receiving government funds.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pmQuite revealing that right-wingers equate money with success. By reflex.
These guys just dine out on false equivalencies.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pmMy measurement for success?
How good of a husband am I?
How good of a father am I?
How good of a contributor to society am I?
My business (and it’s success or failure) it purely secondary.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pm“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Just what policy of the Obama administration contradicts or violates anything stated above?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pmSo the people that believe that Obama’s plans are going to shape this country into something oposite from what the Constitution says they should just sit back and wait for AMERICA to fail without a fight?
That’s what you did When George W. Bush pissed all over the constitution. It’s about the only thing the Limbots are actually good at. Well that and running around repeating Rush like a trained parrot.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pmYou nailed it. The Republican party consists of a few cynical elites, who lead an army of dumbass rednecks around by the nose.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pmBullshit.
We understand what you’re saying.
You’re saying that opposing another’s policies is the same thing as hoping for his failure.
You’ve been saying it for weeks, over and over and over.
And no one is buying it. You continually fail to exhibit any understanding of the difference between the two, and you’ve ignored it every time I’ve asked you this simple question:
if Limbaugh, as you say, oppose implementation of Obama’s policies, and that’s what eh means when he says he wants the President to fail, are you saying that, once those policies are implemented and guiding the nation’s fortunes, Limbaugh will hope for their success, seeing as the fate of a nation in crisis is bound up in their success?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:23 pmWho said Obama is doing anything that is unconstitutional. You don’t know what the fu(ck you are talking about, do you?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:24 pmtpafla, those people are off their nut and hysterical.
Don’t listen to them.
President Obama was handily elected to the office less than five months ago, so perhaps it’s time you guys got a taste of trusting the American people, hm?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:25 pmAl Gore
March 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pmthen it is something people want to buy- you think you are supposed to give it away for free?
In every state but Nevada.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pmThere is absolutely nothing in either the wording of the Constitution or the intent as stated in the preamble that guarantees obscene profits, capitalism or any twisted variation thereof.
They even used the w word.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pm“I think they are now talking about any private sector business that could affect the economy, not just those receiving government funds.”
Backup, when I hear President Obama or one of his spokespeople announce something like this, I’ll worry. It sounds like total bullshite to me. It’s more likely that this is the latest R scaaary talking point.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pmIf money is the measure of success, I guess I’m about half as successful as I was 6 months ago.
In the words of the wonderful Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Success
To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.
But then again, I don’t vote my wallet. Never did.
PEACE
March 25th, 2009 at 3:27 pmtpafla Says:
“hate,…”
His name is Republicans Hate Facts. Please either refer to Republicans Hate Facts as Republicans Hate Facts or as RHF, as we do. Thank you.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pmspencers mom, your child has a wonderful mother.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:32 pmHi, spencer’s mom! I took the day off – it’s 50+ degrees and sunny. Nice to see you!
March 25th, 2009 at 3:34 pmThank Hoodathunk! But I’m the lucky one, I have a wonderful child.
The reason I have that quote on hand is because I keep it, framed, on my desk in my office. It’s good to be reminded about what matters when perspective gets skewed.
PEACE
March 25th, 2009 at 3:35 pmtpafla, you can do whatever your little troll heart desires.
Of course, if you want anyone to respond to you, you might want to consider a certain level of civility.
Not that anyone hear will take you seriously.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:37 pmHi Jane! Good to see you, haven’t been on the board at the same time as you in quite some time.
We’re still cold here in PA, but I keep hoping for spring sometime soon. Spencer and I have decided that we’re going to show up at that groundhog’s home next February 2nd with a few beach umbrellas to make sure he doesn’t see his shadow again!
Enjoy your day, and hi to Wayne!
PEACE
March 25th, 2009 at 3:38 pmtpafla Says: I didn’t say I thought he was doing anything un-Constitutional
So then you should consider STFU?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:40 pmtpafla Says:
First, I’ll tell you anything I damn well please. Second, when are you going to stop focusing on RHF and answer some of the other commenters’ questions? So far you have not provided any answers that have to do with the topic of the thread.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:41 pmI take you at your word on this, but I have a feeling that you’re getting lost in a nuance of language and missing the overall picture.
Let’s say that you and I are villagers in a small, faraway land in which there is the unfortunate problem of tiger attacks. Between us, we own a rifle, and we have a deal that only one of us get to shoot it, but every 4 or 8 years the other one will get his turn.
A ferocious, man-eating tiger has been spotted, and if we don’t do something it will almost certainly do a lot of damage to my family, yours and all the other villagers.
Now I believe in shooting the rifle in a certain way. You fundamentally disagree with my technique. You believe in shooting the rifle in a different way, and I fundamentally disagree with your technique. We argue about that a lot. We both want to stop the tiger, though.
It’s my turn with the gun, so as the tiger races toward us I raise the rifle.
You say, “You’re not doing it the way I’d do it, and I hope you’ll take my advice, but even if you don’t listen to me at all, I’m hoping that you nail that effing tiger right between the eyes so the village can be safe.”
Or you say, “I hope you fail. Then when the tiger’s upon us, killing everyone we love, maybe I’ll get the gun back and be able to take a shot myself. That’ll show you.”
There’s a difference.
Now, this analogy only holds up if there’s a “real tiger” capable of killing us and eating us….. or, in other words, doing serious and lasting harm to this country. I believe the current financial crisis constitutes that. How about you?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:41 pmI believe this is the article Rachael was discussing yesterday’s show. Outside of the slave comment, by the author, it seems like the repugs’ were aware of things starting off as lies and then purposely made the lies bigger.
Near the end of the article it explain how are the crooks are related from the current to the past CEOs. And I haven’t heard the name of
Talk about a skanky bytches. These 400 money grubbing slime are the ones who think they deserved millions of our tax dollars.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:42 pmAs despicable and idiotic as the GOP base may be, there are clever people calling the shots. And those clever people will move mountains to thwart progressive policies.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Rightee-ooo
The dickheads and maroons marching in the ranks of the GOPuke wing of the Party of Property and Privilege (POPP) don’t have any importance. They’re spear-carriers, useful ‘idiotes,’ to use the old greek term.
And you are right: The Owners, as I call them, are clever, ruthless, vicious, brutal people who will stop at nothing to protect their ‘investments.’ And there is nobody who is GOING to stop them either, and they know it, cuz that’s the way they set it up…
March 25th, 2009 at 3:43 pmRHF, don’t engage. It isn’t even a well-constructed question. One would either ask “who is the first presidential candidate you voted for?” or “who was the first elected president that you voted for?” because as the question stands, I could answer “John Anderson” but he was never president, so he wouldn’t be the first president I voted for, or I could answer “Bill Clinton” because, even though it was years later, he was the first presidential candidate I helped elect to office.
FlapAt could be a FuxNews poller when it/if grows up.
PEACE
March 25th, 2009 at 3:43 pmTrollspotter sez: I take you at your word on this, but I have a feeling that you’re getting lost in a nuance of language and missing the overall picture.
Ahem…
Pukes and their pet trools don’t do nuance, or subtlety.
It’s how they tip their hands.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:45 pmtpafla,
What do you offer as an alternative to Obama’s policies?
Who would you suggest Obama turn to for advisors?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:46 pmSpencers mom, we’re still raking last fall’s leaves, but at least I’ve got tons of crocuses (croci?) blooming. Wayne’ll be home soon, I’ll tell him you said hello.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:46 pmJane, we’re doing the same thing! Crocuses and all! What state are you folks in?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:48 pmTrollspotter Says:
Nicely done, but undoubtedly contains too many words for troll comprehension.
Always worth a try, of course.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:48 pmHey there, BnF. Hope you get your question answered, but don’t hold your breath.
I have to go do some more chores. See ya later!
March 25th, 2009 at 3:49 pmNew York, spencers mom – southeastern NY, a coupla miles from the CT border, about 50-60 miles north of NYC.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:50 pmAh, Jane, we’re almost neighbors. I’m in PA near the Delaware River. It’s lovely where you folks live. Enjoy the rest of the day!
PEACE
March 25th, 2009 at 3:53 pmbackup Says:
How about this:
Did progressives support the ’surge’?
Did progressives hope that the ’surge’ succeeded?
chimpy basically got in between two sheiks. Paying one side to leave the other side alone isn’t exactly a lasting policy, nor a smart move.
So hell nawh we didn’t need anymore repug lying, photo-ops, partisan killing machine.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:01 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
If Jindal would make this same speech to the American people and insert “Presient Obama” instead of
March 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pm“Mr. Prime Minister”, he’d ba shoe in.
I enjoy the idea that the trolls here are seeking higher education. Pity they seem to be studying posterior haberdashery.
Good news is, there be lots of professors here who can show them how to wear it well.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
The CONS never UNDERSTOOD when BUSH WAS PRESIDENT that when they ACCUSED US of WANTING BUSH to FAIL that this WAS THEIR PROJECTION and NOT OUR VALUES. Now that THEY are WANTING OBAMA to FAIL, they CLAIM that it’s OK for THEM TO HOLD THIS POSITION that they CALLED IMMORAL and ILLEGAL under BUSH because “WE” did. Even though the ENTIRE CLAIM is JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE of REPUBLICANS HATING FACTS!
March 25th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
So you wanted the tax cuts? The war in the Afghan region? Gitmo? Pork projects? How about his ban on stem cells? You wanted that to pass right? You were rooting for him to accomplish all of these things? I bet you even wanted the stock market to raise above fifteen thousand under George Bush? Please spare us with your BS!
March 25th, 2009 at 4:10 pmJeezus, SM, I always thought you were a little brighter than this.
Then again, you DO possess the right-wing binary mind.
Let me explain RHF’s position to you:
when he said “The CONS never UNDERSTOOD when BUSH WAS PRESIDENT that when they ACCUSED US of WANTING BUSH to FAIL that this WAS THEIR PROJECTION and NOT OUR VALUES” he wasn’t saying that we were in favor of the policies you mention. (It’s actually kind of stupid for someone to make that leap of illogic.)
He was saying that we didn’t want the President to fail.
You guys seem to have trouble separating the two concepts. “Opposing policies” is not the same thing as “wanting to fail”, at least not for us. The difference has been explained several times on this thread, though none better than misshusseinmolly’s post at #51.
When RHF said “this WAS THEIR PROJECTION” I believe he is alluding to the demonstrated right-wing willingness to equate opposing policy and hoping for failure and its inability to credit anyone else with having a different mindset.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:45 pmI’m sure it has already been said, but it’s sooooo very true that it’s worth repeating…
BOBBY JINDAL IS A COMPLETE IDIOT.
A babbling, drooling idiot.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pmThen what the hell is this?
That’s it for this troll. He’s running in circles so much, he’s getting caught in his own lies. There’s no point in arguing with such a liar.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pmThis was from the NYTimes link I posted:
I’ll try to find a better article.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pmTrollspotter. I understand that Obama (and the Democrats in Congress) won the election. It is their prerogative to lead.
But, what is happening, is an effort to delegitimize anyone that disagrees with the administration. Delegitimize them, not based on their ideas, but simply based on their opposition.
It is right (and essential) for the administration and it’s supporters to point out the weakness of it’s opponents arguments. I think that it is not right to suggest that those opponents should be dismissed, based solely on their opposition.
It’s a small, but I think important difference.
Those in the Bush administration probably thought they knew what was best for the American people. Debating going into war with Iraq would be a time consuming effort, that it would rather avoid.
Many administration supporters took the tact that opposition to the administration at that point was somehow unpatriotic or even treasonous. They didn’t want to be distracted by having to explain their intentions.
I believe a more appropriate tact would have been to argue the relative strength of their position, without resorting to the more expedient, but less deliberative, tactic of equating opposition with treasonous obstruction.
The Bush administration and it’s supporters were wrong to do that. If they would have taken the time to overcome the objections to their plans, maybe most of the mistakes could have been avoided.
We had more time to deliberate going to war in Iraq. We have time to deliberate policies that are being proposed today.
Democrats hold the White House, and have significant majorities in both houses of Congress. If their ideas are sound, they will implement them. Answering the charges of those that oppose the administrations policies, will insure they are sound.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:17 pmThat’s touching, b-cup.
I think you’re full of shit with your assessment, but even if it were the case, one could argue that, given their performance over the past eight (or even longer — forty years) this is the way they understand the game is to be played.
You fail to realize that their opposition is the extent of their ideas.
They don’t have any other. None that haven’t proven failures in the real world, anyway.
…Oh, why do I bother?
You’re hopeless, b-cup. Go peddle your concern somewhere else. I think I like you better in full-on troll mode. It’s more honest.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pmHere’s a different article. Unless I’m reading it wrong, the administration is considering regulating companies that haven’t received government money:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/22/america/22regulate.php
March 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pmralph. peace.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pmralph. Let me try this:
I think Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. It would be a mistake that would lead to more unsafe back alley abortions.
I support more of a safe, legal and rare approach. Clinton.
Let’s say something weird happens. Mike Huckabee becomes President and vows to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I would unapologetically state that I would hope he fails to do that.
And if, I were a progressive that supported the entire Democratic platform, and I understood that President Huckabee had intentions to do away with all gun controls, implement a universal school voucher program, increase drilling in the Gulf and in ANWAR, switch to a flat tax, along with the whole rest of the republican platform; I would openly hope he would fail.
I would hope he would fail, because all those ideas (in my estimation) would be bad for America. Why would I hope for Huckabee to succeed in dismantling everything I previously thought was good for Americans?
March 25th, 2009 at 5:34 pmYou’ve tried this threadbare argument before, too, b-cup.
The difference is this: the consequences of Huckabee failing to overturn Roe v Wade have no immediate implications for the economic health or security of the nation.
If Obama’s policies fail, the nation sinks deeper into the morass of the Bush Recession, which likely becomes the Bush Depression. Millions are thrown out of work. Lives are disrupted. Some die. Others live on the streets.
When you try to equate the consequences of an attempt to overturn Roe v Wade with the consequences of economic policy in an economic crisis, it just shows how devoid of good arguments you find yourself.
Stop it. Stop now. You’re not helping yourself, nor anybody else.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:45 pmI’ll bite. I voted for Carter.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:46 pmralph. I just stating what I believe. Or course, there would be immediate consequences of making abortion illegal. And there would be immediate consequences of eliminating gun controls. And on economic issues, there would be immediate consequences by changing to a flat tax.
The charge was that Bush and company exaggerated the immediacy of the threat of global terror to tamp down opposition for the administration’s policies. There is some validity to that.
But, that’s exactly what is happening today. The idea is that we don’t have time to debate the administration’s proposals. The consequences of delay are now that we will sink further into an economic morass, that we may not be able to recover from.
It is possible that you are right. But, can you acknowledge that it could also be a tactic to limit debate that the administration and it’s supporters would rather not have to confront?
March 25th, 2009 at 5:57 pmAnd you now what else, b-cup? You’re still trying to equate opposing policy, i.e. hoping the policy fails to get enacted, with hoping that the policy fails.
Even if the stakes were comparable in your analogy, it still doesn’t work. You would have to compare the following to Republicans hoping for Obama’s failure:
Huckabee as president somehow oversees the dismantling of protection for abortion. In order to make your argument work, a progressive would have to hope that the policy fails — in other words, that making abortion illegal led to a spike in deaths or injury due to back-alley abortions, for example.
The fact that such a consequence is easily predicted is NOT the same thing as publicly hoping for it. I don;t think anyone but the most hard-core ideologue would hope for such an outcome.
Learn the difference. Understand it. Limbaugh and other Republicans are indulging in the latter. And you’re defending them. Every chance you get.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:01 pmralph. I concede the Huckabee comparison isn’t perfect. But, I feel confident about the idea. Progressives did oppose the war. The war was a Bush initiative. If you oppose something, doesn’t it follow that you hope that initiative fails. If you hope it succeeds, why would you oppose it?
And I will argue for an atmosphere where it’s okay to oppose the administration.
I may not agree with those that are being considered traitors today. But, someday those in power may be proposing things that I (or even you) don’t want. When that happens, I want there to be an atmosphere where my ideas are questioned, but not my opposition.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:11 pmYou just can’t help it, can you?
You simply cannot address the specifics of an argument without moving the goal posts.
I never said there wouldn’t be “immediate consequences” of making abortion legal. I never said anything close to that. I said it would have no immediate consequences for the ECONOMIC HEALTH or SECURITY of the nation. how do you skip past critical words like that?
The point being, the economic health of the nation affects everybody. The state of the nation’s security potentially affects everybody.
The consequences of abortion being available or illegal are limited to pregnant women and their immediate loved ones, presumably. Do you see the difference in scope?
And who the fu(k even mentioned gun control or “flat tax”? Stick with one argument for once.
This is why you have the reputation of not being able to debate honestly. Either you’re sloppy, undisciplined, or you deliberately distort others’ words and arguments to make your own points more easily.
Your idea, you mean. Seems like we’ve had plenty of debate on this subject, though very little of it reasoned and honest.
Of course it’s possible. But I haven’t seen any evidence from the Obama administration that they are employing this tactic. Most mainstream economists agree that the situation is dire. Very few say everything is hunky-dory. And they mostly work for The Heritage Foundation.
Bottom line, b-cup: you’re still not able to muster a decent, argument or to present in a consistent, logically sound way.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:18 pm–verb (used without object)
1. to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved: The experiment failed because of poor planning.
2. to receive less than the passing grade or mark in an examination, class, or course of study: He failed in history.
3. to be or become deficient or lacking; be insufficient or absent; fall short: Our supplies failed.
4. to dwindle, pass, or die away: The flowers failed for lack of rain.
5. to lose strength or vigor; become weak: His health failed after the operation.
6. to become unable to meet or pay debts or business obligations; become insolvent or bankrupt.
7. (of a building member, structure, machine part, etc.) to break, bend, crush, or be otherwise destroyed or made useless because of an excessive load.
8. to stop functioning or operating: The electricity failed during the storm.
O.K. by which definition do some people want President Obama to fail. What is the object? Is there a specific presidential duty that some people would like to see Obama fail?
March 25th, 2009 at 6:19 pmGet this through your thick skull:
Hoping an initiative fails IS NOT THE SAME THING as hoping that the effort fails following implementation of the initiative.
Can you understand this difference? It doesn’t appear that you are capable of grasping it.
Yes, I hoped the initiative to secure authorization to invade Iraq would fail.
But once the invasion was the implemented policy, I like virtually all Americans hoped it would succeed.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?????
March 25th, 2009 at 6:21 pmwiley. They want Obama to fail to succeed in what he is attempting.
They believe that what he is attempting will harm the country. Because they believe that, they want him to fail.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:26 pmThey believe that what he is attempting will harm the country. Because they believe that, they want him to fail.
There is no evidence they actually believe that. They say what they believe about Rush Limbaugh, and then they retract the statements a short time later. If they can do so with Rush, what leads you to believe they say what they mean regarding the economy?
March 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pmThey want Obama to fail to succeed in what he is attempting.
To save the country from economic collapse…
They believe that what he is attempting will harm the country.
And their track record as rubberstamps for a big-spending republican president, shows they don’t really believe that either…
Because they believe that, they want him to fail.
Because they say they believe that, knowing economic success means their electoral failure…
March 25th, 2009 at 6:39 pmralph. come on. work with me. you’ve changed my mind before.
you make the point that you hoped the initiative would fail. I understand that and think it was appropriate.
But, Bush was our president, you hoped he would fail on this initiative. I do not see how different that is from those that don’t agree with Obama today. If they don’t agree with any particular initiative or, in the case of Limbaugh, all the initiatives, how is it so different from you hoping that Bush fail to secure authorization for the war?
Additionally, I believe that you are correct that most people supported Bush when the war began. You have a point. But, you cannot deny that support for the war waned. War protests began. I do not understand, that if the President supports the continuance of the war, how are the people protesting the war not advocating for the failure of his intention to continue?
March 25th, 2009 at 6:42 pmBut, Bush was our president, you hoped he would fail on this initiative. I do not see how different that is from those that don’t agree with Obama today.
4500 soldiers might see the difference, if they were still alive.
Thousands of innocent Iraqis, as well.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:44 pmI was against the war fron the start, and never backed away from that position. Does that mean I hate the troops?
Get real.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pmb-cup, let’s see if you can just answer this question this one time….
you build your entire argument on the premise that when republicans say they want President Obama to fail, they mean that they want him to fail to enact his policies, right?
Your argument stops at the implementation of the President’s policies.
What happens at the point where his policies become the direction of the nation, with the immediate economic health of the nation being bound up in their success?
Will these “principled”, “loyal opposition” Republicans then get on board and hope for the success of these policies?
March 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pmbarfly. you say:
opponents would say:
The appropriateness of the opposition is all based on your ideological vantage.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:48 pmBut, Bush was our president, you hoped he would fail on this initiative. I do not see how different that is from those that don’t agree with Obama today.
We all agree there is the real threat of a depression. There never was any threat from Iraq, as the UN inspectors were detailing, before they were ordered out.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:49 pmIt seems to me that Laura Ingraham’s comment about McCain’s daughter being a “useful idiot” applies more specifically to Bush 2, Palin and Jindal.
Oblivious ideologues that care more about the prestige and perks of elected positions, than how their ideology benefits only about 5% of America and is actively detrimental to 95%.
Republicans rely on morons such as these to not know any better.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:50 pmopponents would say:
To use the economic downturn to socialize America…
The same opponents who missed the housing bubble? Who thought easy credit should be a right? Who ushered in the very era of deregulation that caused the problems to begin with? Those opponents? We both know you are not so politically niave as to accept their explanations at face value, when another line of reasoning is more believeable.
That you pretent to, is quite apparent.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pmThe appropriateness of the opposition is all based on your ideological vantage.
And historical precedent. Or are you such a political babe in the woods, who always believes whatever politicians tell him?
Remember “No New Taxes?”
Or how about “The war will pay for itself?”
March 25th, 2009 at 6:56 pmYou are either deliberately obtuse or your facility at language masks your innate stupidity.
You keep pretending that when Republicans say they want the President to fail, they mean it in a very limited way — stopping at the point the policies are implemented. You never address what happens beyond that point, or what Republicans mean in that territory.
Governor Jindal was fairly careful in covering those tracks, but Rush has said nothing that would lead one to assume he limits his hope for failure to simply “implementing initiatives”.
Yet you keep insisting that this is the limit of that opposition.
I have no problem with Republicans hoping that policy initiatives they oppose will fail to be implemented. That’s appropriate. But that is not what they are saying, no matter how hard you try to make it so.
In making your argument you completely ignored my second sentence quoted above –
But once the invasion was the implemented policy, I like virtually all Americans hoped it would succeed.
You pretend that this stage is not in play for Obama’s economic policies that so threaten the right. You pretend that it’s not even a consideration.
See, it’s paragraphs like this that lead me to think you’re either an idiot or dishonest.
If this statement is any indication, you seem completely incapable of separating the concepts of “wanting the policy to continue” and “wanting the implemented policy to FAIL”.
One means that the policy will be changed.
In Iraq, the other means that our military will suffer defeat.
Yet you continually treat these two circumstances as if they were one.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:56 pmSo basically you’re saying that conservatives think further economic damage is preferable to anything remotely European in the way of social services.
If European-style prosperity is the alternative to Depression, they’ll take the Depression, thanks.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:00 pmralph. I think the opposition is ongoing.
Just because your opponent secures a legislative victory doesn’t mean the issue is decided forever.
For example:
Let’s say a republican administration successfully secured a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. You would appropriately oppose the initiative before it became an amendment.
But, what about after that? Do you throw up you hands and say, “Well, that settles it, gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry”.
No, you would continue to fight for the right’s of gay people to get married. Because you believe that’s the right thing to do. More important than supporting the administration currently in power.
There probably always has been, and always will be, opposition. The Obama administration will implement the policies it wants to. If it those initiatives get derailed by opposition, it’s possible the ideas either weren’t sound or weren’t communicated effectively.
The answer is not to squelch opposition with pressure, but to overcome the objections by reason.
And those ideas successfully implemented, will be subject to continual review.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:03 pmThey probably believe that the economic circumstances could and will be solved without resorting to socialism. They probably fear that the current circumstance is being exaggerated to push policies that ordinarily wouldn’t be considered.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pmWell, you know what? They don’t get to decide that anymore. The way we are going to deal with this crisis is the way President Obama decides to deal with it. If his policy succeeds, then the nation’s economy recovers.
If it doesn’t succeed, then we all suffer to one degree or another.
The latter seems to be what Republicans would prefer.
All evidence to the contrary, of course.
What am I thinking? Those guys don’t care about “evidence”. It’s all what they feel in their gut.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:10 pmIsn’t backup’s uncritical acceptance of “the opposition”’s supposedly bedrock belief that Obama must fail – not that he WILL fail, mind you – just that he must fail for the good of the country, just the cutest little thing?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:11 pmralph. I do not believe that those opposed to the war wanted our military to suffer defeat. I believe they disagreed with the premise of the war and believed the objectives of the initiative could not be achieved.
But, if the president wants to ’stay the course’, the protestors disagree. They want the president to fail in his efforts to ’stay the course’, because they believe that staying the course will be bad for the country.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pmThey probably fear that the current circumstance is being exaggerated to push policies that ordinarily wouldn’t be considered.
Classic Rovian backspin. Their policies got us into this mess to begin with.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:15 pmThey want the president to fail in his efforts to ’stay the course’, because they believe that staying the course will be bad for the party.
Fixed it for you, gratis.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:16 pmralph. I’ve got to go.
I know you believe what you believe. I don’t get it, but I appreciate you taking the time. I’ll think about it.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:17 pmThank you, very much.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:19 pmI’m convinced you are being deliberately obtuse.
This is your game. It’s why you come here.
Yous ay you recognize the difference, but then you go back to embrace the crap that “they want him to fail to ’stay the course’.”
That is such a fu(king cop out, b-cup.
here’s the difference between the two sides:
you say, I do not believe that those opposed to the war wanted our military to suffer defeat.
Well, in this economic crisis, the right wing DOES want our economy to suffer defeat.
You know it.
It’s simple: if the economy improves, President Obama gets the credit, no matter what policies he pursues.
That will push Republicans even further into political Siberia — regardless of which policies the President pursues.
This is what the right wing fears, far more than the “socialism” of raising the top marginal tax rate from 36 to 39%.
You know this is true. The leaders as much as say so. You just get your jollies by pretending to be stupid about it.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:29 pmRush Limbaugh needs to do a better job of regulating the flow into and out of his “pie hole”. Whenever he opens his mouth, either mass quantities of apple pie are crammed in, or mass quantities of cow pie spew out.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pmralph. you believe that the only possibility for opposing the administration’s economic policies are partisan.
This is just one guy, but he’s not American and he disagrees with Obama’s proposals:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/EU-presidency-US-economic-apf-14737788.html
The disagreements between those that support Obama’s proposals and those that oppose them, are as real those that believe in Keynesian economic theory vs. those that support Friedman’s.
I don’t believe the root of the opposition is partisan. I believe it is a genuine difference of opinion based on which economic theory each party subscribes to.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pmThis is just one guy, but he’s not American and he disagrees with Obama’s proposals:
One guy is right.
I read the article, and it states that his views aren’t held by the rest of the leaders of the EU.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:11 pmThis is just a stupid statement, and it’s just one more example of you trying to make a case by claiming positions for others that they do not hold.
You’re a disgrace.
You’re also fu(king dreaming. The fact that there is philosophical opposition to Keynesian economics has nothing to do with most Republican opposition to Obama’s proposals.
If you don’t believe the root of the opposition is partisan (and you have just stated that you don’t) you’re living in the dream world that your posts so often reflect.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:18 pmTell the truth, b-cup: you’re not even trying to make a rational argument, are ya?
You’re just trying to get me to call you a fu(king idiot.
That’s it, isn’t it?
March 25th, 2009 at 9:23 pmJindal= Barney Fife without the brains and charisma
March 25th, 2009 at 10:04 pmOK, Heres my question for these bafoons that day they want Obama to fail.
“What makes Jindal, Rush and the likes think anyone wants them (Jindal et al) to succeed” ?
Aren’t they assuming that people want Jindal to succeed in making Obama fail? And do they forget that Obama is a War President and that talk hurts the war effort?
March 26th, 2009 at 3:06 amWell, thankfully he is just the Governor from LA and with that what more needs to be said?
March 26th, 2009 at 7:22 amI don’t want Obama to fail. But, I do know his ignorant economic ideas that have never worked in history will be a failure. Read a book on capitalism economics, the greatest wealth building system in history, and then tell me where it says Obama’s ideas have ever worked?
March 26th, 2009 at 10:47 pm