Hate Options

[*KINGdinguhling*]

President Obama has a plan to create or save 3 million jobs. But did you
hear what Rush Limbaugh said?

"I hope he fails."


i got an email on my school account containing that. I thought was pretty f*cked up. ANY COMMENTS?

[hi-C]

Rush Limbaugh... is... he's a walking talking piece of shit.

[smoke]

So was that taken out of context? I'm not defending Rush, and it wouldn't surprise me if he did say that, but I'd rather see proof before this is taken seriously. I know how this shit gets started.

[hi-C]

That was definitely not taken out of context. Read the transcript here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5113.guest.html

I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails."

[sixfive]

click to enlarge

[*KINGdinguhling*]

cmon, i feel so bad for larry fitzgerald, made 2 of the most amazing post season catches ive ever seen =[

[sixfive]

click to enlarge

[smoke]

Yup, well, he's extreme right and there are extreme left people who are just as absurd. This certainly isn't helping the country though.

edit: Thanks for posting the article.

[sixfive]

Stimulus checks should be sent out in the form of debit card type things so people can't save (the stimulus), only spend.

[hi-C]

Yup, well, he's extreme right and there are extreme left people who are just as absurd. This certainly isn't helping the country though.

It sure doesn't. But the extreme left doesn't agree with Obama's politics either; they think he's not being progressive enough.

The thing I don't get about the right is how they can tolerate such hypocrisy from themselves. They're all like "DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS/THE INSANE LEFT NEED TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT" and now that the president is a Democrat, they're (or Limbaugh, because he's in a very very small minority) are all like "I HOPE HE FAILS." It smacks of insanity. Why would you ever ever ever ever wish ill will on the President? Or hope that his policies fail? I don't think the Democrats ever wanted Bush to fail; I think they wanted him to prove them wrong.

Edit: And one more thing. This part of Limbaugh's statement:

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules?

makes no sense.

Liberals were "trying to destroy Bush" because he didn't win. Period. The Supreme Court handed him the presidency, whereas Obama won. Decidedly. 50-some odd percent of the country though Obama was the right choice on November 4th, and since then his approval rating has been in the 70s. And that's why "they" have to play the game by "their" rules.

Stimulus checks should be sent out in the form of debit card type things so people can't save (the stimulus), only spend.

Yeah, like how they did the digital converter coupons. That's a pretty good idea.

[sixfive]

Nah like they did it with the hurricane katrina evacuees that houston so graciously accepted

[hi-C]

Nah like they did it with the hurricane katrina evacuees that houston so graciously accepted

Wait, what?

[mipadi]

Stimulus checks should be sent out in the form of debit card type things so people can't save (the stimulus), only spend.

Unfortunately, that'll never happen, because our country has the mentality that so-called "handouts" to individuals are "socialism" or the product of a "welfare state", and people should succeed or fail on their own merits.

(Corporations, of course, are immune to this criticism; if a corporation fails, well then, a government handout is a necessity. That's not socialism, folks, that's strengthening our capitalist economy!)

[sixfive]

Actually first off, explaint o me what the digital converter coupons are. I don't think I heard of that and I tried googling it but all it brought up was the television to digital television conversion coming up int he near future.

[sixfive]

Unfortunately, that'll never happen, because our country has the mentality that so-called "handouts" to individuals are "socialism" or the product of a "welfare state", and people should succeed or fail on their own merits.

(Corporations, of course, are immune to this criticism; if a corporation fails, well then, a government handout is a necessity. That's not socialism, folks, that's strengthening our capitalist economy!)

I don't mean to be snarky, but are you agreeing with me? I had almost accepted the fact that we'd always have opposing opinions.

[mipadi]

Actually first off, explaint o me what the digital converter coupons are. I don't think I heard of that and I tried googling it but all it brought up was the television to digital television conversion coming up int he near future.

Well, basically, you know how TV signals will soon only be broadcast in digital, right? Some people (such as my parents) still use an antenna to get signals, but TVs can't handle a digital signal from an antenna. So you have to get a little box to convert the signal.

Anyway, the government gave every household that wanted a converter box a number of coupons (two or three, I believe) to get one of these analog-to-digital boxes for free (or at a steep discount, I can't really remember).

[sixfive]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. I see

[hi-C]

Well, basically, you know how TV signals are only broadcast in digital, right? Some people (such as my parents) still use an antenna to get signals, but TVs can't handle a digital signal from an antenna. So you have to get a little box to convert the signal.

Anyway, the government gave every household that wanted a converter box a number of coupons (two or three, I believe) to get one of these analog-to-digital boxes for free (or at a steep discount, I can't really remember).

It's a $40 coupon. Depending on the box, it's either free or really cheap. After the coupon, mine was $9.

[mipadi]

I don't mean to be snarky, but are you agreeing with me? I had almost accepted the fact that we'd always have opposing opinions.

I don't agree with the way the government handled the bailout, no. I believe one of two things should've happened:

1. Money should've been given to individuals to, e.g., pay off the mortgages they can't afford. Pundits often claim this is a bad idea because individuals may buy "shiny things" instead of paying off their mortgages, but I doubt individuals would've been more irresponsible with the money than investment bankers. Anyway, given the choice between one's house and some new "shiny thing", I think even an idiot would choose his house.
2. Instead of giving the financial corporations the money, the government should've done what an investor would've done: bought up outstanding stocks, so that the investment may one day turn a profit down the road. Since many of these stocks are so devalued now, though, the government essentially would've bought a controlling stake in the banks, turning the once-private banks into nationalized entities. This, of course, does not sit well with conservatives, who decry it as socialism. Well, too f*cking bad. You had your chance at rampant laissez-faire capitalism, and you f*cked it up big-time.

[smoke]

It sure doesn't. But the extreme left doesn't agree with Obama's politics either; they think he's not being progressive enough.

The thing I don't get about the right is how they can tolerate such hypocrisy from themselves. They're all like "DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS/THE INSANE LEFT NEED TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT" and now that the president is a Democrat, they're (or Limbaugh, because he's in a very very small minority) are all like "I HOPE HE FAILS." It smacks of insanity. Why would you ever ever ever ever wish ill will on the President? Or hope that his policies fail? I don't think the Democrats ever wanted Bush to fail; I think they wanted him to prove them wrong.

Yup. That's what I mean. He's only looking out for his party, which is RETARDED. (Sorry for the poor use of political incorrectness, but I can't think of a better word to describe it.) That doesn't progress this country at all. Personally, I'm sick of this whole Republican and Democrat ordeal. I really wouldn't mind a strong third party stepping up and taking the office. We need unity, and no matter how much Obama preaches it, he's a democrat, so there's always going to be a certain level of questioning by both sides. If Obama was serious, he should have ran in a third party. I can see why he didn't, though, because he wouldn't have had a chance, and that's the sad part. Politicians are confined to these two ideals. They're forced to take one of two sides. It really wouldn't surprise me if a 3rd party steps up in the next 8 years. I think it's time. They just have to get their shit together and demand they be taken seriously.

[dosomethin888]

Its not a big deal. Its called freedom of speech. Since when does anyone care what people say about them?


The media is probably just blowing it out of proportion to try to distract us from something else..

[sixfive]

Its not a big deal. Its called freedom of speech. Since when does anyone care what people say about them?
The media is probably just blowing it out of proportion to try to distract us from something else..

like how george bush crashed a plane into the twin towers?!

[mipadi]

Its not a big deal. Its called freedom of speech. Since when does anyone care what people say about them?

I never really get this "freedom of speech" defense. It simply doesn't apply to this discussion. No one's arguing that Rush Limbaugh can't say what he said; they're arguing that he's wrong. Freedom of speech just means you can say what you want; it doesn't mean that you're free from any criticism resulting from your speech.

[sixfive]

well you could use the "freedom of speech" defense in defense of the people criticizing rush, too.

[dosomethin888]

I never really get this "freedom of speech" defense. It simply doesn't apply to this discussion. No one's arguing that Rush Limbaugh can't say what he said; they're arguing that he's wrong. Freedom of speech just means you can say what you want; it doesn't mean that you're free from any criticism resulting from your speech.

Its a radio program.. everyone knows that Rush is very opininated and very conservative.. it comes as no surprise to me that he said this. Im not saying its right either.. but he said it and freedom of speech is allowed. I know its offensive to Obama supporters.. so if it is.. dont listen to Rush.
And these people can say what he said was wrong .. but it doesnt change that he said it. People are going to say and do a lot of things that are "wrong." Dont be oh-so sensitive.. he after all didnt say it about you... and if Obama succeeds... you all can just shove it right back into Rush's face.

well you could use the "freedom of speech" defense in defense of the people criticizing rush, too.

Ya...