Election 2012

[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.

[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

[classicman]

That's about right.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

That's not a very big "if".

Lazy voters -- check

believable sound bites -- check

complacent voters not voting -- check.

jfc.. I think I found the problem! I think the effectiveness of this kind of effort is considerable. There are two kinds of things that motivate people, push and pull. Things that are designed to move to action, and things that are designed to prevent action. There will be plenty of both from Koch and crew. And money and lots of it is a great tool to get this done.

I'm not complacent, and I'm not optimistic about what this bodes for our small d democracy.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They only way they can get away with this is if lazy voters believe the sound bites, and complacent voters stay home.

A majority routinely believe sound bytes. A majority therefore knew smoking cigarettes increased health. Danon increased sales by 25% by preaching a mysterious ingredient called something like digitalis rectalitis. It is why Saddam had WMDs. It is why so many foolishly make computer damage easier by buying a power strip protector.

People most easily brainwashed by soundbytes tend to be the most adamant in denial. They actually insist they think for themselves.

Making those soundbytes nasty has an additional factor. It drives extremists to vote heavily. And it turns off moderates. The purpose of a nasty soundbyte and unlimited funds for campaigning is to empower extremism at the expense of intelligent and moderate voters. History repeatedly shows it works.