Quote: Original post by Mantear
Believe it or not, Barack Obama is not somehow magically linked to the well-being of our nation. What's good for Barack is not always good for the nation.

You present yourself as more authoritative because you listen to his show and you also have my post above holding your hand, and you still get it 100% wrong. Read my post again. Look at the transcript. Limbaugh said exactly the opposite of what you're saying. I have listened, and he said exactly, and read this as slowly as you need to, that he does not hope for Obama's failure. He hopes for the failure of Obama's policies. His policies. Say it with me now: His policies. Success or failure of policy is the same thing as success or failure for the nation. Stop providing cover for this piece of shit who would rather see America deteriorate even more than see an even slightly successful Democrat.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Success or failure of policy is the same thing as success or failure for the nation.

Failure of bad policy can be a success for the nation.
Success of bad policy can be a failure for the nation.

Quote: Original post by Silvermyst

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Success or failure of policy is the same thing as success or failure for the nation.

Failure of bad policy can be a success for the nation.
Success of bad policy can be a failure for the nation.

Please provide a historical example in which a specific policy has failed but the nation has benefited from the failure, and please provide a historical example where a specific policy has succeeded but the nation has suffered for it.

I personally don't care if he's white, black, asian, martian, etc. as long as he does a good job taking care of the economy or tries and I think he is trying. I commend him for that.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Please provide a historical example in which a specific policy has failed but the nation has benefited from the failure,

1)Prohibition- outlawed the production distribution and consumption of alcohol, which raised prices, did not curb useage, and increased crime related to the aforementioned. Discarding this law made it possible to have or sell a beer without resorting to small arms fire.

2) Immigration laws- over a million people took advantage of this failed albatross of a law and are productive members of our workforce. Further they've bettered their economic position and made a better future for their progeny.

Basically look for anywhere there is an illicit, black or gray market, mentally discard the instances you see as a societal harm for the purpose of not debating the details and you have your list.

Quote:
and please provide a historical example where a specific policy has succeeded but the nation has suffered for it.

A panoply of laws since the Articles of Confederation. Pick any 1000 you like.

To spin this in to something palatable for you.

1) The PATRIOT ACT.
2) Telecom immunity
3) The Alien and Sedition Act
4) Selective Service
5) The draft

This is too easy. Note that I chose just 5 that I thought we may agree on, there are easily another 1000 that we might debate.

More on the Obama subject than Steele, but the concept of paying people to dig holes one day then fill them the next is a decent analogue to Obama's stimulus plan.

When he stated that both Keynesian and Classical economists agree that federal stimulus was good for the economy I cringed. It's a blatant falsehood. Being ignorant of economic schools of thought is no crime but he knows better, and is knowingly lying to the world writ large.

Further, he's not even adhering to true Keynesian policy. It's just a give away for his pet lobbies at the cost of everyone that pays taxes.

McCain wouldnt have been any better, but that doesn't make Obama any less awful.

Obama, "Hey, I have an idea, in these times of economic hardship what we should do is tax productive ventures and use the money to subvene non-productive train wrecks, that'll fix us right up."

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote: Original post by LessBread
If Bush succeeded in doing things that he thought were good but that the people would not see as good, his administration would still have announced it.

I don't know what Mantear meant, but in one respect, Bush and the ruling class he served were wildly successful. They got most of what they wanted, and much of that success should have been completely off limits to them. Obviously, the success I'm talking about was diametrically opposed to the public trust which Bush was charged with, but the only thing preventing me from declaring them an unqualified success for privileged douche-bags across the country is that they somehow failed to loot Social Security.

That's a good point. All the talk of Bush incompetence obscures his administration's success at demolishing government, impoverishing working people and paying off cronies.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote: I think Limbaugh is worried that a successful Obama administration would put an end to the already discredited anti-government ideology that he has pushed for the last twenty years.

Maybe, but on the other hand, his audience is immune to objective reality, and with Democrats in control (at least nominally) they're right where they love to be - playing the victim. I don't know what makes Limbaugh's ratings go up or down, and I don't know what the weasel himself expects to happen, but I do know that Dems in control and a country in the crapper isn't all bad news for him.

That's another good point. Limbaugh has built a cult for himself, the cult of victims of reality, perhaps the cult of over sixty white male victims of reality.

Limbaugh used to be a Steelers fan (no word on if he remains so), but he must have had a fit last night when Steelers owner Rooney thanked President Obama.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
More on the Obama subject than Steele, but the concept of paying people to dig holes one day then fill them the next is a decent analogue to Obama's stimulus plan.

I'm fine with arguing about the overall effectiveness of government spending (well, reading arguments as I don't want to spend a lot of time arguing about it), but free market ideals aside in what way are the programs listed here a "decent" analogue "paying people to dig holes one day then fill them the next". It's only a decent analogue if one agrees with you in the first place about the effectiveness of government spending.

Some statements against the stimulus that don't use sucky analogies: while it may provide jobs, the jobs provided won't be the ones needed most by society and it will just prop up failed industries; it may be affective, but tax cuts will be more affective as strong businesses will better be able to use the money than would the government, while weak businesses will still fail as they should; and so on.



Also, pet peeve I've had for awhile, but I hate your signature. Not because of the content as the quotes are vague enough to not offend anyone, but because it takes up too much verticle space when you post multiple times in a row (as you often do) and because the color choice distracts from message content. I keep thinking "something import... no just his signature". Last, you 'sign' all of your posts which I find tacky on a forum that lists your username with every post.

edit: the signing actually isn't a big deal was just looking for stuff to complain about.

Sorry just needed to get that off my chest, carry on.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Please provide a historical example in which a specific policy has failed but the nation has benefited from the failure,

1)Prohibition- outlawed the production distribution and consumption of alcohol, which raised prices, did not curb useage, and increased crime related to the aforementioned. Discarding this law made it possible to have or sell a beer without resorting to small arms fire.

2) Immigration laws- over a million people took advantage of this failed albatross of a law and are productive members of our workforce. Further they've bettered their economic position and made a better future for their progeny.

Basically look for anywhere there is an illicit, black or gray market, mentally discard the instances you see as a societal harm for the purpose of not debating the details and you have your list.

Quote:
and please provide a historical example where a specific policy has succeeded but the nation has suffered for it.

A panoply of laws since the Articles of Confederation. Pick any 1000 you like.

To spin this in to something palatable for you.

1) The PATRIOT ACT.
2) Telecom immunity
3) The Alien and Sedition Act
4) Selective Service
5) The draft

This is too easy. Note that I chose just 5 that I thought we may agree on, there are easily another 1000 that we might debate.

Nothing here I would disagree with too much, but that's given that you are apparently defining the success or failure of a policy based on whether or not it's been implemented or passed as law. That's not what I was talking about, however. In the context of Limbaugh's remarks, where he chastises Republicans in Congress (who certainly oppose many or all of Obama's policies) for hoping that Obama's policies succeed whether or not they agree with them, it's clear that he defines the success or failure of a policy as something other than simply being allowed to be implemented.

Quote: Original post by Mantear
It's funny to see people get so worked up over this. I listen to Rush every once in a while if I'm in my car when he's on because he's entertaining at times. No kool aid drinking going on. Having actually listened to his show, he'll often go off on very sarcastic monologues where, if someone hasn't listened to his show before and just happens to tune in, might think he's being serious. My only point here being that people like to take sound-bites from his show and try to use them without fully understanding what was going on.

That excuse sounds exactly like the apologies that dittoheads always make when Limbaugh soils his diapers. In other words, kool-aid drinking. The guy with no qualms of taking what other people say out of context, instructs his listeners to defend him with claims that his statements were taken out of context.

Quote: Original post by Mantear
His comments being referenced here are along the same lines, although he wasn't being sarcastic when he said he wants Obama to fail. Again, anyone who actually listened to that show where he first said it (I think I caught about half of that portion of the show) would know and understand that an Obama failure != a failure for America. Believe it or not, Barack Obama is not somehow magically linked to the well-being of our nation. What's good for Barack is not always good for the nation. It might be good for his political party and the agendas they want to push, but that does not equate to all of America.

If he wasn't being sarcastic about wanting Obama to fail, then what was the point in talking about his sarcasm? Why employ that smoke screen? The fact is that you don't need to have listened to the show. You can read the transcripts: Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails (January 16, 2009). Even with those transcripts, your assertion that "Obama failure != America failure" doesn't hold. That's his argument, but that doesn't mean that hearing it is the same as agreeing with it, much less "knowing and understanding" it, as you claim (and you claim that you haven't drunk the kool-aid?).

What the transcripts show is that Limbaugh has a bad case of sour grapes. He whines that Bush didn't receive unqualified support in 2000 and then goes on to fabricate a supposed "search and destroy" mission against Bush back then, a notion that the facts do not support. Limbaugh never lets the facts get in the way of his victim narrative. From their Limbaugh attacks liberalism. He's being misinforming his listeners in that regard since day one. Limbaugh, and people who take what he says to heart, mistakenly think that liberalism describes the philosophy of present day liberals. Sadly, Limbaugh's followers don't realize that they are alienating themselves from the grand traditions of American political thought. In opposing liberalism, Limbaugh unwittingly aligns himself with fascism. Liberalism is not the opposite of conservatism. Conservatism is an offspring of liberalism, but Limbaugh doesn't care about that.

At any rate, you're right, Obama isn't magically linked to the well-being of our nation. There's no magic to the linkage. The people elected him President. He won the electoral college by a land slide and the popular vote by a greater margin than Ronald Reagan and now he's been sworn in. He's in charge of executing the business of our government. How well he performs his job directly impacts the well-being of the nation. And yes, you're right that what's good for Obama isn't always good for the nation, but right now, given the condition of the economy, what's good for Obama is far more often than not good for the nation.

Quote: Original post by Mantear
If you can't understand that, I'm sorry, I can't help you. I'm not trying to defend the guy, I'm just trying to make the facts clear. You can dislike him for his points of view, that's fine, I'm just trying to make sure you understand what that point of view is, because there seems to be some confusion.

It looks to me that you're trying to defend the guy. First you defended his sarcasm. Then you said he was misunderstood. Then you said there was no magic linking Obama to the nation. Then you said that Obama's interests were not the same as the nation's interests. The only fact in all that is that there was no magic involved.

Quote: Original post by Mantear
EDIT: Back to the main point. Coincidence? Maybe. It does feel a bit like "me too!" from the republicans. My best guess is that he would have been high in the running previously, and being black pushed him over the top. If a white male had won the presidency for the democrats, I doubt Steele would have won, although he still would have been in the running.

Not if they were paying attention to the demographic trends.