Rush ( to his credit, the man isn’t afraid to stick to his guns, no matter how it’s perceived.) explained his wanting Obama to fail thusly: (removed his statement about Democrats wanting the war in Iraq to fail.)
I was prompted to this by reading about Elizabeth Hassleback defending his position on the view, asking why wanting a system you believe is wrong to fail.
Here’s the logical flaw as I see it:
Rush (and co) believe that Obama’s plans are bad.
“Bad” means, I assume, “bad consequences”
But if Obama’s plans succeed, then they must not actually BE “bad”, resulting in bad consequences.
Simple enough, but of course it isn’t actually. The question becomes: define the bad consequences, and define success and failure.
Obama would simplistically define “success” as the economy growing, lots of jobs, good pay, credit available, business thriving.
How does Rush define Obama succeeding? From the quote, he doesn’t seem to be describing what Obama wants or is trying to do, he’s making something up and bashing it. He’s defining failure as Obama’s success.
So it seems to me that what Rush is really saying is that he doesn’t want Obama to succeed in turing our economy around because he doesn’t like the way Obama will accomplish it. So Rush would rather have everyone suffer?
I confess that when I begin to really drill down it starts to give me a headache.
:rolleyes:
Rush defended both of these things as necessary for the security of the US back when Bush was president. Now that his guy isn’t in charge anymore, suddenly they’re bad. Hey Rush, why aren’t you backing the president during time of war? Why do you hate America?
Rush’s viewpoint would make sense if there was a competing plan in the works simultaneously. Then you could root for the Obama plan to fail, and the Bizarro-bama plan to succeed; Americans would be better off; and Limbaugh would be vindicated.
But the current plan is all we got. If it fails, we all fail, including the flaming nazi gasbag.
Well, your characterization of the previous is wrong. Nonetheless, let’s have a cite, so we can see what this one is like. Stoid did not use ellipses in the previous, so it might be interesting to see if there is any editing that she did but did not choose to mention.
Because she claims that Rush does not mention what would constitute success. This is clearly other than factual, since Rush mentions something about this. But we do not know, at this point, if that is what Rush really said, or if Stoid edited the quote to move it in from somewhere else, or if the whole thing is false, or what.
That’s the problem with unattributed editing. We have to ask ourselves if we are debating anything real.
Google is your friend. It would have taken you 5% of the time to find the quote that it has taken you to make rude, irresponsible suggestions about the (vanishingly remote) possibility that I have grossly distorted Limbaughs words.
And it is vanishingly remote possibility because:
a. I have no need to, it’s Rush.
b. As noted, the quote is readily available, why present something so easily disproved?
c. Most importantly, I have no history of such misrepresentation. This is the second time in a week you’ve made the suggestion…wait, this is the first time you’ve merely suggested it, previously you just came right out and blatantly stated that I have and do misquote and misrepresent. When I refuted you and invited you to prove your baseless assertion with citations to evidence somewhere in my thousands of posts, you simply disappeared.
You have now used up your quota of sloppy, unsupported accusations that I misquote or delete meaningful context, much less any sloppy, unsupported suggestion that I would, have, do or am lying. About anything. To anyone. At any time. Ever. Because I hove not, do not, and will not.
Rush is convinced they will harm the country so he’s not entertaining the possibility they will succeed. That’s how he’s able to phrase his position so bluntly.
I do know this: No society in the history of the world has ever successfully taxed itself into prosperity - and almost all of them have tried it … repeatedly.
Also, massive spending to get out of debt is an asinine strategy. All honest and reasonable people reject it out of hand.
Throwing money at social problems is another policy that has been consistently failing for decades.
And the whole “green jobs” and “renewable energy” policies are throwing good money after bad. The US has a $14 trillion dollar economy. No sane person thinks an economy that size can be run on windmills and solar cells.
I think an appropriate analogy would be someone who wanted the “surge” to fail back in 2007. The success of the surge would have (at least partly) vindicated GWB’s Iraq invasion. I’m sure more than one liberal might have consciously or subconsciously wished for the surge to fail catastrophically back then, just to ensure that no current or future president would ever try something similar to the Iraq invasion again. I just don’t think too many actually had the nerve to say it in public.
Yes, they are. Or would you agree that when GWB was reelected in 2004, as a result of Republican plans having succeeded, that it was therefore good? (From your POV, that is.)
When people you oppose succeed in acheiving their goals, it does not, ipso-facto, mean that those goals are good.
Or am I misunderstanding you? This all seems so obvious that I can’t help thinking I must be offbase here somewhere.
