Election 2012

[classicman]

...stating their number one goal is to keep Obama from being elected

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.

[Sheldonrs]

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.

True, but very rarely is it stated out right by a leader of the other party on the first day the President in question is sworn in.
McConnell did that, if I'm not mistaken.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

True, but very rarely is it stated out right by a leader of the other party on the first day the President in question is sworn in.

So you at least admire their openness and honesty?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by classicman

So you at least admire their openness and honesty?

quelle drole

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

quelle drole

At least you got the sarcasm that time.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by classicman

So you at least admire their openness and honesty?

In much the same way I would "admire" the honesty of someone pointing a gun to my head and telling me he's going to kill me.

lol

[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.

[maineiac04631]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

^ Gets it.

Originally Posted by tw

... meaning he wanted America to fail.

Yes, he wanted America to fail, fail to become a third rate socialist state like Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal. The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

[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.