Election 2012

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by classicman

Sorry to tell you, but this is the goal of every party which loses the previous election.
This is nothing new. To the victor go the spoils and all that.

That's bullshit, in the not that distant past the #1 goal was good government, what's best for the country. They didn't always agree what that entailed, but they worked and compromised toward that end... plus lining their own pockets.

A couple of months ago unemployment was slowly, steadily, going down and Obama's rating was climbing. Suddenly unemployment started to rise. coincidence? I think not. I think it's evidence that the power brokers will sacrifice you and yours, to get a stronger stranglehold on the country. They have plenty of money to wait it out while the economy flounders, do you?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Sorry to tell you, but this is the goal of every party which loses the previous election.

Not true. Back in the days of Nam, Congressman and Senators from both parties would fight like cats and dogs. By day. That night, usual was to see Democrats and Republicans drinking together or socializing at each others homes. But they were moderates.

We now have wacko extremists. Therefore the most Republican Republicans including Alan Simpson, Bob Doles, George Sr, etc are all saying the Republican Party has become extremist. Hate is the new normal. Citing the Tea Party in particular.

It's no different in business. The purpose of every productive business is its product. In a good business deal, all counterparties prosper. There is no winner and loser in a good business or political deal. Only winners. But that means thinking like a moderate. Extremist need failures to gain power.

In politics, the product is America. Either advance America. Or advance the party. In corrupt nations, the party is more important than the nation. More failure empowers only extremists. Moderates work for the nation; not for extremist rhetoric and ideals.

Rush Limbaugh, et al openly said in 2008, "We want America to fail." Harm to America means hate and economic destruction. Harm to America means more power for wacko extremists. Extremists work only for themselves; at the expense of America. All over the world, extremists prosper when failure exists.

Extremists need a nation to fail. Extremists need the hate openly advocated by Limbaugh et al. Neither existed when moderates ruled the Hill.

[maineiac04631]

Originally Posted by tw

Rush Limbaugh, et al openly said in 2008, "We want America to fail."

He said he wanted Obama to fail, meaning he did not want him to be able to implement his agenda Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus, etc.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by maineiac04631

He said he wanted Obama to fail, meaning he did not want him to be able to implement his agenda Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus, etc.

Yea, I could support that. Obamacare will fail and cost a shit more than they originally told us...., the Bailouts were generally a failure, the "Stimulus" was a huge fucking failure.... So what did we get? Transparency? Fail. Jobs? Fail. Economic prosperity? Fail. Same-old-shit? Yep.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by maineiac04631

He said he wanted Obama to fail, meaning he did not want him to be able to implement his agenda Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus, etc.

pretty fine hair to be splitting there.

I don't find much of what Rush Limbaugh says of substance to be very defensible, and this statement, even with your clarification, is classic Limbaugh. Provocative, negative, generally unhelpful. You and I are adults, so is he; each of us can think of a dozen ways to say the same thing but in a constructive way. But that's not his style. I don't like his substance and I detest his style.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by BigV

pretty fine hair to be splitting there.

I don't find much of what Rush Limbaugh says of substance to be very defensible, and this statement, even with your clarification, is classic Limbaugh. Provocative, negative, generally unhelpful. You and I are adults, so is he; each of us can think of a dozen ways to say the same thing but in a constructive way. But that's not his style. I don't like his substance and I detest his style.

Yeah, but that doesn't appeal to the multitards.

[tw]

Originally Posted by maineiac04631

He said he wanted Obama to fail, meaning

... meaning he wanted America to fail. He said that bluntly in early 2008. And then backed off his rhetoric when even party peers started criticizing him for being so obvious and offensive. Apparently you forgot all that. Short term memory occurs when listening to extremist political talk radio.

[tw]

Originally Posted by maineiac04631

He said he wanted Obama to fail,

Limbaugh said he wanted America to fail so that Obama would not be relected. Your reasons (Health care, etc ) did not even exist yet. Limbaugh later change his rhetoric to "we want Obama to fail". Those most easily brainwashed by Limbaugh automatically forgot what Limbaugh first said. And automatically believed the new political rhetoric.


Where is this non-socialist state that is so prospering? According to Limbaugh logic, all western nations are socialist nations. Please list nations that do not have socialism and are therefore prospering.

[xoxoxoBruce]

According to the reliable inside-Washington source "Politico," the Koch brothers' network alone will be spending $400 million over the next six months trying to defeat Obama, which is more than Sen. John McCain spent on his entire 2008 presidential campaign.

Big corporations and Wall Street are quietly funneling big bucks into other front groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that will use the money to air anti-Obama ads while keeping secret the identities of these firms. The chamber and other front groups argue if they revealed their names, the firms might face "retaliation" and "reprisals" from their customers. That's another way of saying they might be held accountable.

Looking at the all the anti-Obama super PACs and political fronts like Crossroads GPS, Politico estimates the anti-Obama forces (including the Mitt Romney campaign) will outspend Obama and pro-Obama groups (including organized labor) by 2 to 1.

How can it be that big corporations and billionaires will be spending unlimited amounts on big lies like the one in this ad with no accountability because no one will know where the money is coming from?

More.

They only way they can get away with this is if lazy voters believe the sound bites, and complacent voters stay home. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[BigV]

Right.

What has been conspicuously and tragically absent from the statements made by the most public and vocal Republicans is a sense of working for the good of the country. It was all rah rah rah my team, right or wrong and no coming together after the election. That was shitty, and is shitty. It's childish. I have seen young children display more "good sportsmanship" than these bitter, craven, myopic harridans. We will all reap the bitter harvest they've sown.

[infinite monkey]

So true, sadly.

[classicman]

That's about right.

[Trilby]

Ah but with capitalism when you run out of money you just have
the stupid tax payers eat the cost! Now I see the difference!

[Ibby]

Say what you like about Singapore, but it is the world's happiest dictatorship..

[Trilby]

How come it's ok to bail out businesses? Why don't they - bastions of capitalism- refuse our money?? Why ok for corporations to take
huge bailouts when they vehemently don't believe in them? ??