White House Plots Against Limbaugh

Glaucus said:
It's not "blind loyalty", we're giving the guy some time to do something. No one is saying the man can pull rabbits out of his ass, but many believe he's the best man for the job right now and any man is gonna need some time. You think you could do more in less time?

And is socialism scary? Maybe it is, but if you're facing socialism now it is purely because the capitalists created such a royal cluster f#ck of everything they are the last ones people are willing to turn to right now. Is socialism what Obama is doing? Is it good or bad? That's for another debate, but if that's the way things are going you can blame the capitalists for it.
Click to expand...

+1 == well said.
 
the only people raving on about rush are republicans
 
redrumloa said:
cecilia said:
Obama has actual work to do and doesn't have time to waste with some drug-taking loser.
Click to expand...

Drug taking loser? Obama doesn't have time to waste on himself :?:
Click to expand...
your "wounded pride". "sore loser" is showing

pull up your pants
 
Wayne said:
@red,

Touche, and all that, but you misunderstand.

Outside of thinking that Obama was a much better candidate than four/eight more years of Bush III (McCain), I have no horse in this race at all.

As I've said to Lee during the campaigns, I have no idea how good, bad, or indifferent Obama will be as President. I simply know that four more years of what screwed up this country to begin with was a bad idea. Also, as Lee can verify, it was a long road for me to go from anti-democrat to accepting that Obama was a better candidate for the job than McSame.

The difference is, I understand that this is not a situation that will be resolved in 2 months, and I'm willing to give the guy a chance to fix it -- considering, as most economists agree, "NOBODY knows how to fix the economy, but the way we were headed was definitely NOT the answer".

I also base my willingness to try something new on the fact that traditionally, Democrat programs have always been able to bail out the country in times of economic peril -- whether or not the Republicans are willing to admit it.

Economics 101. The US economy runs in 7 year cycles, which usually DON'T match up with presidential cycles. We spent the last 8 years destroying it -- 12 if you want to blame Clinton, as some now do -- so frankly, *if* the economy can recover, it's going to take a few frickin years to do so.

Wayne
Click to expand...

Good comments Wayne (and you know we don't agree on Obama) but you may be missing the point... it's not that Obama is president (that issue is settled and over). The issue for Republicans, including me, is how (we perceive) Obama is apparently willing to try to fix it. Are we, as a nation, willing to back away from Capitalism (including survival of the fittest) and surrender to what many see (including me) as socialism (be it "European style" or Webster's definition)?

There is no question that the economy is in shambles and Bush can certainly be blamed for part of it but this disaster was years in the making and I do indeed believe that more then one president shares in the blame (as well as the corresponding Congresses). So now we have a new guy who is willing to spend even more (including lots of pork to go around on all sides) rather then clamp down on what will really work... dedicated infrastructure, etc... McSame (as you prefer to call him) was proposing to freeze all spending and do review (which as you recall I strongly preferred). Add to that both house and senate leaders seem to be telling us that no one cares about pork. HUH?

Yes, as someone else here has pointed out, you can blame capitalists for getting us to this point but if you think "big government" will fix it you are equally blind. The market has to clear itself up... as Wayne stated, we do go in cycles.

Where exactly is Obama "helping"? :?

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
ltstanfo said:
I personally see this blowing up in the White House's political face. I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show. :pint:

Regards,
Ltstanfo
Click to expand...

While it isn't over yet, it looks like I may get my wish (to a degree anyway):

White House Admits Attacking Rush Isn't Helping

Now maybe, just maybe the administration can get back to work and try to do something helpful for our economy? :wink:

Regards,
Ltstanfo
 
Glaucus said:
It's not "blind loyalty", we're giving the guy some time to do something.
Click to expand...

Wayne got my point, but you and Cecilia apparently did not. It may not be blind loyalty, just like some of us may not have wounded pride or be sore losers. Iit for tat, so to speak. I just took Wayne's approach and turned it back the other way.
 
cecilia said:
redrumloa said:
cecilia said:
Obama has actual work to do and doesn't have time to waste with some drug-taking loser.
Click to expand...

Drug taking loser? Obama doesn't have time to waste on himself :?:
Click to expand...
your "wounded pride". "sore loser" is showing

pull up your pants
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. I said it before the election, I didn't vote this time because I thought both candidates would be terrible for the country. It appeared during the campaign McCain and Obama were practically attached at the hip for issues I was mainly concerned with. If a gun was put to my head, I probably would have voted for Obama (and regretted it like I regretted Bush).

No wounded pride, I had no dog in the fight. That doesn't mean Obama's destruction of America should be ignored.
 
ltstanfo said:
And now Jim Cramer has joined in the fray. I guess one White House (directed) "boogy man" isn't enough. :wink:

Regards,
Ltstanfo
Click to expand...

Yup! Say what you want about Cramer, I have. Anyone trading stocks based on his advice needs their heads examined. That said he is entertaining and he HAS got a lot of things right on the overall economy. Se his famous explosion from early last year at a time when Bernanke and Bush were still claiming everything was fine. Spot on. This adminstration doesn't like what he has to say so they want to shut him down? Sounds a awful like Cold War USSR or today's Venezuela.

From your link, here is what Cramer has to say.

Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.

The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have.
Click to expand...

If they shut him down, who will have the balls to speak up? Will they get shut down also? Doesn't freedom of speech mean anything to Obama supporters?
 
Wayne said:
@red,
Economics 101. The US economy runs in 7 year cycles, which usually DON'T match up with presidential cycles. We spent the last 8 years destroying it -- 12 if you want to blame Clinton, as some now do -- so frankly, *if* the economy can recover, it's going to take a few frickin years to do so.

Wayne
Click to expand...

35 - ish
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Wayne said:
@red,
Economics 101. The US economy runs in 7 year cycles, which usually DON'T match up with presidential cycles. We spent the last 8 years destroying it -- 12 if you want to blame Clinton, as some now do -- so frankly, *if* the economy can recover, it's going to take a few frickin years to do so.

Wayne
Click to expand...

35 - ish
Click to expand...

You are probably right Fluffy, it could very likely take that long or longer. What I think Wayne and others are failing to see is steps Obama is taking will NOT help one bit, but will likely make the crisis far worse. We aren't talking about a 7 year cycle, we are talking about a crisis that appears to be far worse than the great depression. The only example the US has to compare to is 140 years ago, civil war era. Economist are comparing to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it has the potential of being far worse than that event. Obama trying to reinflate the bubble is nightmarish.
 
redrumloa said:
If they shut him down, who will have the balls to speak up? Will they get shut down also? Doesn't freedom of speech mean anything to Obama supporters?
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Shut him down? They're just trying to wind these guys up. Since they're hot heads they're just trying to give them some rope. If they're dumb enough to take the bait they'll shut themselves down when they step over the line.

But let's not forget who has the power to kill these news stories or promote them. The media - which is owned by right wing corporations (GE, TimeWarner, etc)

Back in the day when articles of impeachment were filed against Bush 43 in the House ... hear anything about that on the news? Downing street memo? Office of Special Plans? If the owners of the news don't want it to be a story then it won't be a story.

Attacking dispicable personalities gives the "news" (entertainment) industry lots of fluff and bluster to talk about, keeps them all looking at the wrong thing while annoying the large middle in the electorate.

Then the administration can ask "Is the media really serving the US citizen or are they all self obsessed with selling their own "stars"".

And seriously, the people who have forgotten about Rush who get curious and check him out again right now? Well, at the moment he sounds like a loon. His paranoid ranting is on a par with what people dislike about Alex Jones.

Except I prefer Alex because he hates both parties - because they are the same party.
 
redrumloa said:
You are probably right Fluffy, it could very likely take that long or longer. What I think Wayne and others are failing to see is steps Obama is taking will NOT help one bit, but will likely make the crisis far worse. We aren't talking about a 7 year cycle, we are talking about a crisis that appears to be far worse than the great depression. The only example the US has to compare to is 140 years ago, civil war era. Economist are comparing to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it has the potential of being far worse than that event. Obama trying to reinflate the bubble is nightmarish.
Click to expand...

Well, NO-ONE wants to do what it takes to solve this problem.

No, actually, Dennis Kucinich (D) and Ran Paul (R) BOTH want to abolish the Federal Reserve ... and that's what needs to happen. Just about 100% of the assets that the Federal Reserve lends on are actually on loan from the US Government. The government can immediately take over the Fed because they effectively own all the assets of the Fed. At that point they can forgive themselves the interest on those assets that the Fed is charging and immediately and directly lend credit to any viable company that may need it. Need 60 days credit to cover a big deal till it pays out, or 90 or whatever. If you own the Fed you can directly force banks to cover those things and help them to do it. Once you make sure that commerce can survive then you let all the investment banks fall on their asses and you back industry and productive ventures. Peoples pensions will go Kablooee and peoples medical insurance will go blammo but the government can step in and provide those things for a fraction of the cost that the private sector provides them at.

Then repeal all 3 strikes laws and let all the minor drug offenders out of jail, end the war on drugs and regulate and tax pot. Then take a sober look at the military bases around the world. The Roman's ran their empire with a mere 30 military bases - admittedly smaller empire, smaller world. The British Empire also had about 30 bases around the world. The US empire has 700 bases in other people's countries. Are they really cost effective?

And also, the guys that stole all that money over the last 30 years need to give it back to the guys that earned it - the only people that create wealth in any country - the workers.
 
according to some propaganda piece of shit mailed to my mother (asking her for money, of course) Obama said:

"Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh if you want to get things done"

and they claim THIS is censorship.

wow, talk about not being able to comprehend.

seems to me that comment (and I'll take it just as written) means, "If you want to accomplish a goal go out and DO something. Don't waste time sitting by a radio. get off yer butt".

and esp don't waste time listening to some ner do well who's done nothing.

it sure doesn't imply rush can't spew his usual crap.

all I hear and read from this is whiners whining

and people afraid to DO anything
 
cecilia said:
according to some propaganda piece of shit mailed to my mother (asking her for money, of course) Obama said:

"Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh if you want to get things done"
Click to expand...


This is exactly the kind of word game (well, it's just this side of lying if they don't attribute it as a quote but is on the lying side of lying if they do) that tells you precisely where on the spectrum (political and moral) the media stands.

Here is Fox news for example.

They headline the story
"Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done"

Which implies that it is something that Obama said but is just loose enough that they can say it is effectively the same thing as what he said and there's some editorial license and hey-what about our free speech!!!

In the second paragraph (which is quite a bit further than a lot of Fox viewers would ever read) they provide the actual quote.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,"

Which has a radically different sense and is criticism, and also an actual fact, rather than censorship.

If that got picked up as an email to be bandied around as an Obama quote then its already doing its smearing job. You should reply with the actual quote and chastise whoever it was for sending out smears without doing a little fact checking first.
 
No, Obama supports the Fairness Doctrine.

Fairness Doctrine = censorship
 
ltstanfo said:
McSame (as you prefer to call him) was proposing to freeze all spending and do review (which as you recall I strongly preferred).
Click to expand...

That would be a nuclear option. Under Bush, Government was the fasted growing employer in the US. It is such a huge employer that a sudden change in that status would throw vast numbers of people into spasms of consumption curtailment. The fastest killer of consumption is unemployment. If it's yours you cut back out of necessity. If it's someone you know, you cut back "just in case".

The best way to pull things round is to hire everyone and guarantee the job for a couple of years. And it doesn't really matter WHAT they get hired to do. Just so long as they feel confident enough to spend some of what they earn.
 
redrumloa said:
No, Obama supports the Fairness Doctrine.

Fairness Doctrine = censorship
Click to expand...


That is an idiotic equation. Censorship means making someone shut up. The fairness doctrine is about allowing a second person to speak also. Vastly different.

If the media can indulge just one side of a debate and ignore the other then THAT is censorship. Just because a private company excludes certain viewpoints doesn't make it any less censorship than when the government does it.

The next thing you're going to try to tell me is that war = peace, freedom = slavery and ignorance = strength.
 
ltstanfo said:
And now Jim Cramer has joined in the fray. I guess one White House (directed) "boogy man" isn't enough. :wink:

Regards,
Ltstanfo
Click to expand...

Somehow Cramer missed the signals before the election that Obama was a hard-left-government liberal.

Cramer said:
"But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000 at the exact time when we need them to spend and build new businesses, and by revoking deductions for funds to charity that help eliminate the excess supply of homes."
Click to expand...

The economy has been just as bad before, the cure is tax cuts to stimulate private investment.

At this point it almost seems like Obama is trying to turn a recession into a depression so he can be FDR.
 
cecilia said:
and esp don't waste time listening to some ner do well who's done nothing.
Click to expand...

That describes OBAMA perfectly!
thumbs_up.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top