What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"I also remember when I used to listen to Limbaugh (it was during Clinton years.... "

You "remember" no such thing. You NEVER listened to Rush Limbaugh. All your information about him is strictly hearsay, worthless cackle promulgated by the worthless Left-wing madia, who completely rely on idiots repeating their nonsense.

SirJosephPorter, I hope you feel proud of yourself.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Response to #43, by L Gilbert:

L Gilbert, I apologize for one word I used that, admittedly, was a tad too strong.

My problem is that I have no tolerance for people who parrot opinions expressed by someone else. If you watched Rush Limbaugh on TV more than ten years ago, you have no right to claim any authorithy on the subject as it relates to present day.

I fully agree with you that your smarts are far higher than mine. However, I - and any reasonably normal person - should not rely on what that p2ick, Jon Stewart says about anything. He is a poster boy for any reasonable person to become an anti-Semite. Makes it worse that he is a Jew.

You and I have a lot in common. We are both retired and comfortable in our skin and our income. Too bad that I am not as svelte as you are. Too bad Rush Limbaugh is not as svelte as you are. But show me some document or dependable journalistic or legal ruling that body weight negates validity of any opinion.

That exists only in the oh-so-tolerant world of liberals.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
To the idiots (and you know who you are) who think that Rush Limbaugh is the Leader and/or voice of the Republican Party:

Take it up with your leader, the voice of the Democrat Party, James Carville!!!
 

dabana

New Member
May 9, 2009
1
0
1
obama's era

Besides, economic mess, foreign challenges such as, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Darfur, and Middle-East will narrow Obama's chance to be re-elicited. Republicans will do their best to win the 2012 presidency election as you said, but there is no a prove that the economic will hail soon .both parties are fighting over the presidency and the congress, but for us what is important is the economics. I do not think they are going to co-operate in order to rescue our economics.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Extrafire, Republicans want Obama’s policies to fail, many of them have said that.
Yes. At least that part of your rambling rants is true. I want his policies to fail too.


Obama’s policies are designed to get the country (and the world) out of the economic morass largely caused by Bush and the Republicans.
Obama's policies are designed to spend multi-trillions of government dollars, socialize the US economy, place the financial system under government control, place the auto industry under government control and muzzle dissent. Because he believes in left wing economics, he's hoping that these measures will result in the country moving out of the economic mess caused mostly by Carter, Clinton, Barney Frank and the Democrats (including a small contribution from Obama himself).

If Obama’s policies fail, that means they also fail in producing the desired outcome, a speedy economic recovery.
He cares less about the ecnonomy than the imposition of his leftist ideology. If he fails to achieve that, then the US at least has a chance to rebuild.

Now it is highly unlikely that Obama’s policies will be neutral to economy. When such a massive amount of money is pumped into the economy, it is going have an effect, for the good or the bad.
No kidding!:roll: Looks like we're getting through to you. Here's a clue what the effect is likely to be. The injection of that much money into the economy will produce an upward bump. However, when the financial injections stop, the economic correction will continue, likely more downward trend. Soon Obama will not be able to borrow any more. Then he will maybe just "print" trillions of dollars, triggering massive inflation. I think we can all be assured the effect will be bad. And after all that, the taxpayers are going to be on the hook to pay off all that debt, another millstone around the neck of the economy.

So if Obama’s policies fail, that means that nothing good will come out of his economic policies. That means we are looking at considerable worsening of economic conditions, from a deep recession to outright depression.
If Obamas policies fail, that means that the economy will remain capitalist, giving the people at least a chance of paying down the massive debt he's accumulating. It may not be possible to avoid a depression, but at least if O's policies have failed, there's a chance to get out of it. If Obama succeeds in implementing his policies, the US may be stuck in a depression for decades to come.

Failure of Obama’s economic policies means 25% unemployment and 20% inflation. When Republicans loudly proclaim that they hope Obama fails, they are hoping for his economic policies to fail and thus are hoping for 25% unemployment and 20% inflation. And all this just so that can win back the power.
Oh cut the crap. We all know very well that's just your fevered brain inventing BS and attributing it to the Republicans in order to give you an excuse to support Obama's suicidal policies.
 
Last edited:

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Oh cut the crap. We all know very well that's just your fevered brain inventing BS and attributing it to the Republicans in order to give you an excuse to support Obama's suicidal policies.

Really Firstfire? Then what do Republicans mean when they want Obama’s policies to fail? If not 25% unemployment and 20% inflation, do they hope that Obama’s policies fail and they produce 4% unemployment and 2% inflation?

Nothing of the sort. Republicans are fully aware of the consequences of failure of Obama’s policies; it will lead to another depression. But some Republicans are not bothered by that, they would much rather have another depression, untold amount of misery just so they can get back into power.

If I had been a Republican (perish the thought), I would arrange my wish list as follows.


  • I would hope that we get a speedy economic recovery, but that Obama still loses in 2012.


  • Failing that, I would hope that we get a speedy economic recovery, even if that means an Obama win in 2012.


  • Third choice would be another depression and Obama losing in 2012.


  • The worst possible outcome would be another depression and Obama still winning in 2012.

Now, to be fair, many Republicans would agree with this wish list. But some Republicans put No. 3 at the top of their wish list. They want another depression in the hope that that will defeat Obama in 2012. They cannot even conceive of 1 and 2 (speedy economic recovery) or 4 (Obama winning). Those prospects are too horrible to contemplate.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
He cares less about the economy than the imposition of his leftist ideology. If he fails to achieve that, then the US at least has a chance to rebuild.

Sorry, Firstfire, but you have no choice in the matter; Obama has already implemented his ‘Socialist agenda’ as you call it (even though most economists say that what he did was necessary).

You don’t have a choice as to whether his agenda will be implemented, it is already being implemented. After all, he campaigned on his agenda, you can hardly blame him for implementing it. If you want to blame someone, blame American people for electing him.

So his agenda is being (and will be) implemented, you have no choice there. Now you can hope that he succeeds or he fails. If you hope that he succeeds, you are hoping for an early economic recovery. If you are hoping for his failure, you are wishing for 25% unemployment and 20% inflation.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
both parties are fighting over the presidency and the congress, but for us what is important is the economics. I do not think they are going to co-operate in order to rescue our economics.

Quite right, that is why I think it was a good thing that Democrats got such big majorities in the House and the Senate. If Republicans had control of the Congress, it would have been a deadlock and nothing would have got done, economy would have slowly but surely slid towards the abyss of depression.

But now Obama gets to implement his agenda. The voters will judge him and Democrats depending upon if his agenda works or fails.

But for once there is no gridlock in Washington, and I am grateful for that. Something needed to be done to correct the Bush economic meltdown. I am ambivalent as to what Obama is doing is right, but at least he is doing something.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Just wish the republicans had a party capable of debating anything. There is rumor of a third party starting up, but not to save the economy, but to push for all the little things Obama originally promised before the election, another lefty group. Seems nothing new coming, so Obama will probably make it thru 2016.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Just wish the republicans had a party capable of debating anything. There is rumor of a third party starting up, but not to save the economy, but to push for all the little things Obama originally promised before the election, another lefty group. Seems nothing new coming, so Obama will probably make it thru 2016.

I think that almost entirely depends upon what shape the economy is in, ironsides. I (like most Americans and Canadians) hope that economy recovers quickly, say, by next year. But we will have to wait and see.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
I think that almost entirely depends upon what shape the economy is in, ironsides. I (like most Americans and Canadians) hope that economy recovers quickly, say, by next year. But we will have to wait and see.

Yup, That is all we can do. That man really came into office with a lot of surprises awaiting him. He is impressing me so far. Just wonder how he/they expect to revamp corporate law, right now they are just making mandates to get companies to fall in line, bypassing corporate laws. Almost like that quote made in that movie about Nixon "(If the President does it then its not against the law.)" is happening again now.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Yup, That is all we can do. That man really came into office with a lot of surprises awaiting him. He is impressing me so far. Just wonder how he/they expect to revamp corporate law, right now they are just making mandates to get companies to fall in line, bypassing corporate laws. Almost like that quote made in that movie about Nixon "(If the President does it then its not against the law.)" is happening again now.


Such opportunity arises perhaps ones a century. With Franken likely to win in Minnesota, Democrats will have a filibuster proof majority until the next election. They will almost certainly lose that majority in the next election, even if economy recovers.

So if Democrats want to implement their agenda, they have to get their act together and move swiftly. Very likely in the next election they will lose the filibuster proof majority, if not lose control of the Senate.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
To the idiots (and you know who you are) who think that Rush Limbaugh is the Leader and/or voice of the Republican Party:

Take it up with your leader, the voice of the Democrat Party, James Carville!!!


It doesn’t work that way, Yukon. The President is always the leader of the party. So Obama is the leader. For party out of power, that is different, it usually doesn’t have a clear cut leader. Then whoever has the most influence on the party emerges as the de facto leader.

And in the case of Republican Party, that leader is not Steele, but Limbaugh.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Response to the nonsense expressed in post #93:

Let the Republican Party decide who the leader is. They do not need the opinion of a foreign idiot.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
It doesn’t work that way, Yukon. The President is always the leader of the party. So Obama is the leader. For party out of power, that is different, it usually doesn’t have a clear cut leader. Then whoever has the most influence on the party emerges as the de facto leader.

And in the case of Republican Party, that leader is not Steele, but Limbaugh.

Does Limbaugh really have that much power or credibility?
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
For the couple of imbeciles (#95 @ #96):

It takes a person who NEVER had a pain in his life, because his wife - being a doctor - could prescribe any and all medicines in any amount to relieve that pain, to judge another who suffered insufferable pain.

Height of hypocrisy, of course!

So, you two have about as much credibility as Ahmedinajad declaring freedom for all Catholics in Iran.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
For the couple of imbeciles (#95 @ #96):

It takes a person who NEVER had a pain in his life, because his wife - being a doctor - could prescribe any and all medicines in any amount to relieve that pain, to judge another who suffered insufferable pain.

Height of hypocrisy, of course!

So, you two have about as much credibility as Ahmedinajad declaring freedom for all Catholics in Iran.

I'll match my credibility against yours, Y.J. :lol::lol: