What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[SirJosephPorter]

They do NOT want a depression, they fear we are in one and that Obama’s policies will exacerbate it, likely doubling its duration. They want his policies to fail so that the depression/recession will end sooner.

Extrafire, that doesn’t make any sense. Obama’s policies are designed to help improve the economy, to dig the economy out of the ditch Bush and the Republicans landed it in.

Success or failure of anything is judged by the outcome. If the outcome is good, the policies are said to be success. If outcome is bad, the policies are regarded as having failed.

So it is reasonable to argue that if Obama’s policies succeed, we will have economic recovery next year, and a depression will be averted. If Obama’s policies fail, we will have a full blown depression, lasting for ten years or more.

But now you want to define success as plunging the economy into a depression, and failure as economic recovery next year? What kind of crazy talk is that?

I can just imagine, assuming Obama’s policies work and we get an economic recovery. Next year Democrats will be campaigning on the platform that Obama’s policies worked, we are out of recession. And what will be Republican argument? That Obama’s policies failed? Republicans will be the object of ridicule.

You are defining success as failure and failure as success. Reminds me of the double talk in ‘1984’, war is peace, freedom is slavery etc.

Well, I don’t put any value in such double talk, and I suspect neither do most people. To me, success is when something achieves the desired aim. If Obama’s policies lead to economic recovery next year, they are a success as far as I am concerned. If his policies plunge us into depression, he will have failed.

But I am really interested which dictionary you got the definition from, that if we get economic recovery next year, that means Obama failed, and if we get a depression, that means Obama succeeded. I suppose it needs a gigantic brain like the blowhard on loan from Christian God, Rush (drug addict) Limbaugh. I wouldn’t put too much stock in what he says, if I were you.

Talk of cloud cuckoo land.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How come I missed that? I would have thought that if the Republicans elected him leader it would have been a big story in the press, but not a peep.

Besides which, is he even a member?

The Republican base elected him a leader long time ago, Extrafire. They never accepted McCain as one of them (they did accept Joan of Arc, however). And yes, it was a big story in the press.

When anybody who says anything even remotely contradictory to Limbaugh has to profusely apologize to the Republican base the very next day, when supposed leader of the Republican Party, Steele, has to grovel before Limbaugh and beg for forgiveness, offers his abject apology for saying something contradictory to the great guru, it is clear that Limbaugh is the real, de facto leader of the Republican Party.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Gee, thanks for pointing that out (3 times in 1 post). I would never have known. :roll:

The Republicans are also aware of that. They're also aware that they can't stop him from proceeding. Duh! That's why they're hoping he fails because his policies, if successful, will devestate the US economy, and they don't want the economy devestated.

(That must be about 10 times that you've been told why they want him to fail, but I'll bet you still will keep spouting that BS you invented)

Indeed, so if economy recovers, that means Obama failed. If economy slides into depression, it means Obama succeeded. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Are people really going to buy the Republican argument, their claim that Obama failed, if the economy recovers? That is the most twisted, perverse logic I have ever seen.

 

[Extrafire]

They do NOT want a depression, they fear we are in one and that Obama’s policies will exacerbate it, likely doubling its duration. They want his policies to fail so that the depression/recession will end sooner.

Extrafire, that doesn’t make any sense. Obama’s policies are designed to help improve the economy, to dig the economy out of the ditch Bush and the Republicans landed it in.

Obamas policies are designed to impose his ideology. But then you already know that. You've been told enough times.

Success or failure of anything is judged by the outcome. If the outcome is good, the policies are said to be success. If outcome is bad, the policies are regarded as having failed.

Not so. If a plan succeeds in achieving its objective it has succeeded whether that outcome is good or bad.

So it is reasonable to argue that if Obama’s policies succeed, we will have economic recovery next year, and a depression will be averted. If Obama’s policies fail, we will have a full blown depression, lasting for ten years or more.

That is totally unreasonable. If O's policies succeed he will have acheived his objective of socializing the economy. But you already know that, since you've been informed of such about 10 times now.

But now you want to define success as plunging the economy into a depression, and failure as economic recovery next year? What kind of crazy talk is that?

That's YOUR crazy talk. Your invention. You made it up. Don't attribute that to me.

You are defining success as failure and failure as success. Reminds me of the double talk in ‘1984’, war is peace, freedom is slavery etc.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. That's just you interjecting your own inventions and claiming them to be mine.

Well, I don’t put any value in such double talk, and I suspect neither do most people. To me, success is when something achieves the desired aim.

EUREKA! That's what I've been trying to drill into your head! And when O's policies achieve their desired aim (socialized economy etc) he will have succeeded. And O's success will be very bad for the US.

If Obama’s policies lead to economic recovery next year,

I will be very surprised.

they are a success as far as I am concerned. If his policies plunge us into depression, he will have failed.

Now you're getting a bit more reasonable.

But I am really interested which dictionary you got the definition from, that if we get economic recovery next year, that means Obama failed, and if we get a depression, that means Obama succeeded. I suppose it needs a gigantic brain like the blowhard on loan from Christian God, Rush (drug addict) Limbaugh. I wouldn’t put too much stock in what he says, if I were you.

Talk of cloud cuckoo land.

Since that isn't my definition, but rather something that you made up, I guess only you know where it comes from.

 

[Extrafire]

The Republican base elected him a leader long time ago, Extrafire. They never accepted McCain as one of them (they did accept Joan of Arc, however). And yes, it was a big story in the press.

When anybody who says anything even remotely contradictory to Limbaugh has to profusely apologize to the Republican base the very next day, when supposed leader of the Republican Party, Steele, has to grovel before Limbaugh and beg for forgiveness, offers his abject apology for saying something contradictory to the great guru, it is clear that Limbaugh is the real, de facto leader of the Republican Party.

A big story in the press? Perhaps you can direct me to the media source. They have archives. No doubt such a major development would have been well examined by the blogs. I'm sure the liberal blogs would have made a huge deal of it. No doubt it got a lot of coverage on this very forum. Please direct me to the story so I can educate myself.

 

[Extrafire]

Indeed, so if economy recovers, that means Obama failed. If economy slides into depression, it means Obama succeeded. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Are people really going to buy the Republican argument, their claim that Obama failed, if the economy recovers? That is the most twisted, perverse logic I have ever seen.

I do realize how ridiculous that sounds, and I've been trying to tell you that for quite some time now. You're the one who made it up, after all. Glad to hear you've finally realized how silly you sound.

 

[Francis2004]

Actually no, if Obama succeeds it will be a world failure.

OK let me see if I understand your logic..

If McCain had been President and had succeeded it would have been a good thing ?

But because it is Obama, if he succeeds, it will be a failure ?

 

[Extrafire]

OK let me see if I understand your logic..

If McCain had been President and had succeeded it would have been a good thing ?

Depends on what McCain would have done as President. If he had succeeded in imposing all his initiatives to fight "global warming" that would have been a bad thing for the US.

But because it is Obama, if he succeeds, it will be a failure ?

It has nothing to do with who it is, but rather what the objective is.

 

[Francis2004]

Depends on what McCain would have done as President. If he had succeeded in imposing all his initiatives to fight "global warming" that would have been a bad thing for the US.

It has nothing to do with who it is, but rather what the objective is.

Regardless of what your beliefs are, what difference does it make what pulls us out of the recession ?

Are you that selfish that at all cost it cannot be "green or environmental" driven economy that does it ? Are you that desperate to prove that cleaning up the Earth regardless of whether or not it has any effect on "Climate Change" if it pulls us out a recession it is a BAD thing..

 

[Extrafire]

Regardless of what your beliefs are, what difference does it make what pulls us out of the recession ?

Are you that selfish that at all cost it cannot be "green or environmental" driven economy that does it ? Are you that desperate to prove that cleaning up the Earth regardless of whether or not it has any effect on "Climate Change" if it pulls us out a recession it is a BAD thing..

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was refering to McCain's intention to implement "planet saving" measures such as cap-and-trade which would have a devestating effect on the US economy. I made no mention at all of any measure designed to pull us out of the recession, although I'm sure you realize that anything having a devestaing effect on the economy would deepen the recession, not pull us out.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anyway, Firstfire, you have cleared something that has always confused me. Bush drove the economy into ground, he absolutely devastated the economy. They why do some Republicans think that he has been the best president ever?

That is because they use your twisted logic. Bush was a great president precisely because he devastated the economy. And I assume Clinton was a failure because he fixed the gigantic mess left by the first Bush (who incidentally, was a great president, though not obviously as great as his son, he also drove the economy into the ground, but not as much as his son).

Your logic (that if economy recovers, that mean Obama failed, that if we slide into a depression, that means Obama succeeded) does explain a lot of things. For instance, why do some conservatives here insist that Mulroney was a great PM? Why, because he presided over high unemployment and 40 billion $ deficit. Why do they think that Chrétien was the worst PM ever (except for all the other Liberal PMs, of course)? Because he rescued the economy from the life support, where Mulroney had put it, and ran surpluses of 10 billion $ plus.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
I suppose then you must think that the Messiah is the greatest PM ever, greater than even Mulroney, since he is running deficits on a bigger scale than Mulroney.


Your Alice in Wonderland logic, that if economy recovers that means Obama failed, and if economy slides into a depression, that means he succeeded, explains a lot of things.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A big story in the press? Perhaps you can direct me to the media source. They have archives. No doubt such a major development would have been well examined by the blogs. I'm sure the liberal blogs would have made a huge deal of it. No doubt it got a lot of coverage on this very forum. Please direct me to the story so I can educate myself.

I will be happy to, Firstfire. Check this out.

Steele to Rush: I'm sorry - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

 

[SirJosephPorter]

OK let me see if I understand your logic..

If McCain had been President and had succeeded it would have been a good thing ?

But because it is Obama, if he succeeds, it will be a failure ?

Indeed, that is what Firstfire seems to be saying, Frances. If economy recovers, Obama fails, if we slide into a recession, Obama succeeds. I have no idea how he comes up with such logic, but there it is.

I assume it works the opposite with McCain or any Republican (or does it work the same way? I don’t know). If McCain had been the President and if economy recovered, I assume he would interpret that to mean that McCain succeeded (or would he still claim that McCain failed? It is hard to say with Alice in Wonderland logic). If economy slid into a depression, he would interpret that to mean that McCain failed.

I assume it works the exactly opposite for a Republican than it does for a Democrat. Anyway, I assume that is why he probably thinks that Clinton was such a dismal failure, because economy was roaring ahead under Clinton. Also, I wonder if he also thinks that Carter was an economic success. Because according to his definition, Carter succeeded hugely.

 

[ironsides]

The Republican base elected him a leader long time ago, Extrafire. They never accepted McCain as one of them (they did accept Joan of Arc, however). And yes, it was a big story in the press.

When anybody who says anything even remotely contradictory to Limbaugh has to profusely apologize to the Republican base the very next day, when supposed leader of the Republican Party, Steele, has to grovel before Limbaugh and beg for forgiveness, offers his abject apology for saying something contradictory to the great guru, it is clear that Limbaugh is the real, de facto leader of the Republican Party.

We forgot to mention Colin Powell, seems he is trying to get back in the good graces of the Republican party. Challenging Rush Limbaugh. I still cannot believe that anyone could consider Rush Limbaugh as leader of the party.
Wonder why the Democrats think he is the leader unless by keeping him at the forefront the party will remain off balance.

 

[Cannuck]

OK let me see if I understand your logic..

If McCain had been President and had succeeded it would have been a good thing ?

But because it is Obama, if he succeeds, it will be a failure ?

That's not Extrafire's logic at all. Success of Obama's policies mean a nationalization of industries and socialism. The economy could turn completey around during his tenure but that doesn't neccessarily mean success. The term success can be (and has to be in, my opinion) attached to more than just the economy (success = strong economy tends to be a view or the right BTW). It needs to have a well rounded definition. Was Hitler a success because he turned the German economy around? Was Stalin a success because Russia became a word power under him? What about Emperor Hirohito or Hideki Tojo? If success is merely defined as a strong economy then Muroney and Thatcher were successful while Ghandi was not.

One could argue whether Obama's policies are designed to do what Extrafire claims. One thing is clear though, you and SJP are either fools or are being purposefully obtuse.

 

[pgs]

Of course obtuse.
People like SJP and others on both sides of the political spectrum with their my way or the highway attitude,effectively shut people out of political debate.
this is a very bad thing for democracy and it shows up more every election with less and less people voting.
So keep up the good work,your effort is much appreciated .

 

[Extrafire]

I will be happy to, Firstfire. Check this out.

Steele to Rush: I'm sorry - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

I asked you to direct me to the big story in the press of when the Republicans "made Rush their leader". Instead you directed me to a site that describes a squabble between him and Steele. Not only that, the article describes exactly what you are trying to do, pretend that Rush is the Republican leader!

From the article:

The dust-up comes at a time when top Democrats are trying to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party,

[...]

...by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the radio host is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”

See that? They were doing just what you're doing, tring to make people believe that Rush is the Rep. leader.

The response from Rush:

Limbaugh said: “I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years.”

I'd say that's pretty clear.

Maybe you should have read the content of that link before you posted it.

But if Rush has been selected their leader, I still maintain that it would have been a big news story and a big blog/forum story. So I'm still waiting with bated breath for you to provide the link.....:roll:

 

[Extrafire]

Anyway, Firstfire, you have cleared something that has always confused me. Bush drove the economy into ground, he absolutely devastated the economy.

Actually the devestated economy was due to a number of factors, the main one being the government interference into the financial industry of the US, primarily by Clinton. Bush just had the misfortune to be in the oval office when all those chickens came home to roost. But you know this, you've been informed several times so let's not beat that horse to death again.

They why do some Republicans think that he has been the best president ever?

That is because they use your twisted logic. Bush was a great president precisely because he devastated the economy. And I assume Clinton was a failure because he fixed the gigantic mess left by the first Bush (who incidentally, was a great president, though not obviously as great as his son, he also drove the economy into the ground, but not as much as his son).

Your logic (that if economy recovers, that mean Obama failed, that if we slide into a depression, that means Obama succeeded) does explain a lot of things. For instance, why do some conservatives here insist that Mulroney was a great PM? Why, because he presided over high unemployment and 40 billion $ deficit. Why do they think that Chrétien was the worst PM ever (except for all the other Liberal PMs, of course)? Because he rescued the economy from the life support, where Mulroney had put it, and ran surpluses of 10 billion $ plus.

I suppose then you must think that the Messiah is the greatest PM ever, greater than even Mulroney, since he is running deficits on a bigger scale than Mulroney.


Your Alice in Wonderland logic, that if economy recovers that means Obama failed, and if economy slides into a depression, that means he succeeded, explains a lot of things.

Do you lie awake at night dreaming this stuff up or does someone feed it to you? I think you're losing what little grip you have on reality.

You know well what constitutes success and why the Republicans want Obama to fail. You've been told several times, yet you completely ignore it and come up with this drivell. Go to post #116 and work your way back, and try answering logically the points I've made.

 

[Extrafire]

We forgot to mention Colin Powell, seems he is trying to get back in the good graces of the Republican party. Challenging Rush Limbaugh. I still cannot believe that anyone could consider Rush Limbaugh as leader of the party.
Wonder why the Democrats think he is the leader unless by keeping him at the forefront the party will remain off balance.

They WANT him to be the Rep leader.

And I'm beginning to think that SJP isn't really a left/lib but rather is a plant by the conservatives to make the left look really bad.:lol:

 

[Francis2004]

Indeed, that is what Firstfire seems to be saying, Frances. If economy recovers, Obama fails, if we slide into a recession, Obama succeeds. I have no idea how he comes up with such logic, but there it is.

I assume it works the opposite with McCain or any Republican (or does it work the same way? I don’t know). If McCain had been the President and if economy recovered, I assume he would interpret that to mean that McCain succeeded (or would he still claim that McCain failed? It is hard to say with Alice in Wonderland logic). If economy slid into a depression, he would interpret that to mean that McCain failed.

I assume it works the exactly opposite for a Republican than it does for a Democrat. Anyway, I assume that is why he probably thinks that Clinton was such a dismal failure, because economy was roaring ahead under Clinton. Also, I wonder if he also thinks that Carter was an economic success. Because according to his definition, Carter succeeded hugely.

I'm sorry SJP but are you have issues with my name ?

Well SJP, all Democrats have done bad bad things and all Republicans have done nothing but good. It was always the Democrats faults when the Republicans were in Power, either by past legislation or Congress / Senate control. Nothing can ever admit they might have made a mistake.. However what ever good was done under Republican rule will of course be fully accepted and never given credit to any Democratic assistance.. So it be law..