What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[lone wolf]

So ... it's SJP's phrase eh?

Online Etymology Dictionary
verbal (adj.) 1484, "dealing with words" (especially in contrast to things or realities), from L. verbalis "consisting of words, relating to verbs," from verbum "word" (see verb). Verbal conditioning is recorded from 1954. Colloquial verbal diarrhea is recorded from 1823.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well, no it isn't his term. Joe simply is diarrhetic with verbal diarrhea.

It's almost like he thinks that if he repeats himself often enough, it will become fact or truth. lmao

 

[YukonJack]

"Limbaugh is a talk radio host... on from 12pm to 3pm... Monday to Friday.

That is all.

The Democrat paranoia is endless to suggest that he sits on any throne.

Boy does he shiver their timbers!"

Liberals can not come to terms with the undeniable fact that they could never EVER produce a media personality like Rush Limbaugh.

They tried Mario Cuomo. They FAILED.
They tried Gary Hart, They FAILED.
They tried an entire 24 hour hate radio - Air America with such virulent snakes as Al Franken, Janine Garofalo and Rhandi Rhodes. They FAILED.

They are off the radio waves. At least they realized no decent person buys into their hate-mongering.

So, have the liberal hate-mongers given up? No such luck.

They sent their most despicable butch, Rachel Maddow on TV. Her ratings are in a well deserved tank, opposite to Sean Hannity on FOX.

They sent the most despicable hate-monger, Keith Olbermann on TV. Just as he was a FAILED sportcaster, he is a FAILED political commentator. He has the good fortune to compete with Bill O'Reilly on Fox in the 8:00 PM ET time slot. He is failing worse than the BUTCH.

Then they sport idiots like Chris Matthews who gets a "tingly feeling feeling in his legs" each time he sees the half-black Messiah. Or Katie Couric. Or Brian Williams.

All those idiots who complain about FOXNews Network being too conservative (in spite of the fact that they are too cheap to subscribe to and watch it) should subscribe to MSNBC to see unrivalled, unabated hatred, hallmark of liberal love and tolerance.

Of course, they are too chap to subscribe even to their favourite hate channel. Being typical liberals, they are waiting until the government bans all conservative voices (have you heard about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine?) and the only opinion in the media will be liberal/socialist/communist.

Until then bashing Rush Limbaugh - whom they never actually listened to - is the best they can do.

 

[YukonJack]

Back to topic:

The consequences of Obama's policies succeeding are far more devastating and tragic than Obama's policies failing.

Any doubt? Look at Cuba. Venezuela. North Korea. Former Soviet Union. England. Netherlands. France.

Et cetera, et cetera.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Limbaugh is a talk radio host... on from 12pm to 3pm... Monday to Friday.

That is all.

The Democrat paranoia is endless to suggest that he sits on any throne.

Boy does he shiver their timbers!

If he ‘he shiver their timbers’, then what is the problem with Democrats portraying him as the de facto leader of the Republican Party? I would think that Republicans would want a leader who will ‘shiver their timbers’. Then why are the Republicans trying to deny that Limbaugh is their leader?

That is the standard Republican mantra, anybody that democrats criticize (Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilley, Dick Cheney etc.), is supposed to ‘shiver their timbers’. Thus during the election campaign, far right used to argue that Joan of Arc ‘shivers their timbers’, that Democrats were shaking in the boots at the thought of campaigning against Joan of Arc.

Her approval ratings sank through the floor, she became intensely unpopular among women (the very group she was picked to bring over to the Republican Party), all that didn’t matter. To hear the Republicans speak, Joan of Arc was causing Democrats to shake in their boots.

That Republican part line continues even to this day, that the Democrats are supposedly deathly afraid of Joan of Arc. It is similar with Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh. If Democrats are so afraid of him, why don’t Republicans make him their leader, and why are they vehemently denying it when Democrats say that he is their leader?

 

[lone wolf]

:roll: The breath of summer.... More hot air....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Back to topic:

The consequences of Obama's policies succeeding are far more devastating and tragic than Obama's policies failing.

Any doubt? Look at Cuba. Venezuela. North Korea. Former Soviet Union. England. Netherlands. France.

Et cetera, et cetera.

You forgot Canada, Yukon Jack. Canada would be proud to be counted along with England (by England, I assume you mean Britain, or UK), Netherlands and France.

If Obama’s policies succeed, that means we will have an economic recovery next year. If his polices fail, we are looking at economic misery and mayhem for next 10 years. Now, that thought may send tingle up your spine (with the thought of Republicans controlling Senate, House, Presidency and the Supreme Court, the ultimate one party rule). However, I think most sensible people would prefer recovery next year rather then ten more years of misery (just so you party can win back the power).

 

[Cannuck]

:roll: The breath of summer.... More hot air....

I hear they are going to replace Biden with SJP

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Liberals can not come to terms with the undeniable fact that they could never EVER produce a media personality like Rush Limbaugh.

Yukon Jack, Rush ‘Drug addict’ Limbaugh is a hate monger, a rabble rouser. So of course he is popular with the haters, with the rabble. Hate mongers have an appeal to such people.

I have my theory as to why talk radio isn’t popular among the left, only among the right. That has to do with hero worship. Right is big on hero worship, left isn't. To a lot of haters on the right, Limbaugh is a hero, the dittoheads agree with whatever he says.

It doesn’t work that way on the left. Speaking for myself, I have no heroes; I am loyal to liberal principles, not liberal politicians or liberal commentators. Right is into hero worship big time, right positively worships the ground Reagan walked on (even though Republican Party has now moved far to the right, Reagan today would be thrown out of the Republican Party as a RINO). Same way, the far right base worships the ground Limbaugh walks on.

But if Limbaugh is such a super hero, a talent on loan from Christian God, why doesn’t he run for Senate, or for President? I will tell you what will happen if he does.

All the hate he has spewed forth, all the venom he has spouted against blacks, women, gays, Hispanics will be dug up, he will be strung up for all the hateful things he has said. His drug conviction will be brought up, will be hashed and rehashed. Limbaugh would be lucky to win the Bible Belt states. If in 2012 it is Obama vs. Limbaugh, my prediction would be that Obama wins, even if USA is in depression.

Limbaugh is well aware of that. So he sticks to what he does best, hate mongering.

 

[JLM]

Liberals can not come to terms with the undeniable fact that they could never EVER produce a media personality like Rush Limbaugh.

Yukon Jack, Rush ‘Drug addict’ Limbaugh is a hate monger, a rabble rouser. So of course he is popular with the haters, with the rabble. Hate mongers have an appeal to such people.

I have my theory as to why talk radio isn’t popular among the left, only among the right. That has to do with hero worship. Right is big on hero worship, left isn't. To a lot of haters on the right, Limbaugh is a hero, the dittoheads agree with whatever he says.

It doesn’t work that way on the left. Speaking for myself, I have no heroes; I am loyal to liberal principles, not liberal politicians or liberal commentators. Right is into hero worship big time, right positively worships the ground Reagan walked on (even though Republican Party has now moved far to the right, Reagan today would be thrown out of the Republican Party as a RINO). Same way, the far right base worships the ground Limbaugh walks on.

But if Limbaugh is such a super hero, a talent on loan from Christian God, why doesn’t he run for Senate, or for President? I will tell you what will happen if he does.

All the hate he has spewed forth, all the venom he has spouted against blacks, women, gays, Hispanics will be dug up, he will be strung up for all the hateful things he has said. His drug conviction will be brought up, will be hashed and rehashed. Limbaugh would be lucky to win the Bible Belt states. If in 2012 it is Obama vs. Limbaugh, my prediction would be that Obama wins, even if USA is in depression.

Limbaugh is well aware of that. So he sticks to what he does best, hate mongering.

Is Limbaugh worth this much discussion?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Is Limbaugh worth this much discussion?

Sure, why not? Anybody who is adored, worshipped by several million extremists is always worth a discussion.

 

[Extrafire]

Quote:
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. - SJP

Notice that the word "de facto" is conspicuous by its absence. - Extrafire

Extrafire, also notice that I said that ‘Republican base’ elected him the leader. It is common knowledge that Republican base does not have official elections for the Party leader, the base do not elect the Republican Party leader in an election. So it is implied that base elected him the de facto leader.

You keep changing it every time I call you on the BS. Weasel words. Why not just admit you made it up? And where's that big press story? Still waiting to see that. I'm wondering what weasel words you're going to come up with to wriggle out of that claim.

OK, I'm going to put this in a way that even you can understand. I said the consequence of the successful implementation of O's policies will be a devastated economy.

Now, this is where I have a problem, Extrafire (and this is where we differ). A policy is a success if it achieves the desired, the stated aim, if it fixes what it was intended to fix, if it fixes what it says it is going to fix.

You have two different definitions in there. A policy is a success if achieves its intended aim. The "stated" aim, however, may be completely different from the intended aim. Obama will never come right out at state that he intends to socialize the US economy. Yet when you nationalize banks, auto manufacturing, health care, that's exactly what you're doing. It's the socialization of the economy that Republicans want him to fail at (something you've been told repeatedly).

Obama has said that if his polices are successful, it will revitalize the economy, and put the country on the road to recovery. If his polices fail, it means that economic pain will continue.

This is the marker laid down by Obama for the success or failure of his policies. Who gave you the right to invert it, say that right is left and left is right? Obama says that successful implementation of his polices will result in revitalized economy, failure will result in devastated economy. I take him at his word. You don’t’ have any authority to invert the definition of success and failure unilaterally.

I don't recall him stating that. He has said that he's attempting to stop the crash by "stimulating" the economy. However, most of his "porkulus" spending has been on left wing pet projects while the bailouts are in fact seizing a great deal of the economy for the government. One of the large banks received bailout money that it didn't want and tried to give it back but the Obama administration won't let them. Must keep the banks under government control, after all.

As to your claim that we already may be in depression, on what do you base that? Do you have any statistics, any evidence to back it up, or is it just your political bias speaking? How do you define a depression anyway? Is it 9% unemployment and 2% inflation when a Democrat is in power (and 25% unemployment and 20% inflation when a Republican is in power)?

That's a rather nebulous definition. It used to be that all downturns were called depressions, but after the "great depression" no one wanted to use that term for a little downturn so they came up with recession. I think the accepted definition of a recession is 3 consecutive months of negative growth. A depression was re-defined as a longer period, but I'm not sure just how long. 6 months? Can't remember.

But when people use the word "depression" they don't worry about that kind of definition. They mean a repeat of the "great depression" of the dirty thirties. This is nothing like the recessions we've been through since the end of the great depression. The cause of the crash is unique, the depth of the crash is much deeper and so far we're pretty much paralleling the economic decline of the great depression. That's why I fear we may already be in a depression.

As for the stimulus having any effect, well check out this link:

Was the Stimulus Irrelevant? - Columns - American Issues Project

Looks like the US is going to have a socialized economy and a government so deeply in debt that it would be impossible to pay it off even in a boom economy and a depression to boot.

 

[Extrafire]

Just trying to figure SJP out. He refers to Francis 2004 as Extrafire...or is it Firstfire...or maybe Keep the Home Fires Burning.

It's hard to figure out what he's talking about but it would be nice to know who he's talking to.

:lol: Considering the things he says I don't think it matters too much who he's talking to.

 

[Extrafire]

It is not the left wingers who have declared Limbaugh the boss; it is the far right republican base which has made him the de facto leader of the Republican Party. It has nothing to do with left wingers; they have no say in who is the leader of the Republican Party.

I've already pointed out to you that it's you and a couple other lefty Democrats who have been trying to declare Rush the leader of the party. You didn't deny it.

You just keep repeating that BS you made up, but I notice you changed to "de facto leader" since I called you on it.

Still waiting with bated breath to see that big press story.

 

[Extrafire]

I think Limbaugh is a blow hard but the Obama Administration sure gives him a lot of attention.

They sure do, and I wonder why. It's almost unheard of for a politician to attack a commentator like that. I wonder if he has them a bit concerned.

Rush must like it though, his ratings (and, no doubt, income) have skyrocketed with all the attention.

 

[Extrafire]

why are they vehemently denying it when Democrats say that he is their leader?

Because he isn't. Duuuhhh!

 

[Extrafire]

I have my theory as to why talk radio isn’t popular among the left, only among the right. That has to do with hero worship. Right is big on hero worship, left isn't. To a lot of haters on the right, Limbaugh is a hero, the dittoheads agree with whatever he says.

It doesn’t work that way on the left.

Al Gore, David Suzuki, Paul McCartney, Shawn Penn, Ted Kennedy, Che Guevarra and the greatest rock-star hero of them all, the One who walks on water, the saviour of the world, Saint Barack Obama, to name just a few.

Speaking for myself, I have no heroes;

:lol: Oh, that's rich! Please explain your slavish devotion to the Obamessiah.

 

[Extrafire]

"What breath-taking arrogance!!

So, I aquiesce: you are indeed the champion - undisputed - of VERBAL DIARRHEA.

One word from you is proof enough.

I don't see arrogance. Rather I see a pathetic attempt to build himself up, vainly trying to take on an aura of importance.

I'm taking off for a weeks holiday so I'll turn him over to you.

Cheers.

 

[Francis2004]

:roll: The breath of summer.... More hot air....

That not a breath of summer and hot air.. It Climate Change at its worse.. :lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You keep changing it every time I call you on the BS. Weasel words. Why not just admit you made it up? And where's that big press story?

The big press story was awhile ago, Extrafire, you apparently missed it. As I said, de facto leader means that nobody elected him in an official election; he forcibly took on the mantle of leadership. Thus any Republican who says anything even remotely negative about Limbaugh is set upon like a pack of wolves by his followers, his dittoheads, he has to apologize profusely, has to grovel at Limbaugh’s feet for mercy, that means (at least to me) that Limbaugh is the de facto, absolute ruler, leader of the Republican Party.

And there have been several instances of that; Steele is just the latest example. A while ago a Republican House representative said something unflattering about Limbaugh, he had to apologize to Limbaugh profusely just the next day. Then there was a politician in the South somewhere, same thing happened to him.

But let me ask you something. Can any Republican say anything unflattering about Limbaugh, disagree with Limbaugh about the smallest detail and get away with it? No way, he will have to profusely apologize the next day (if not the very same day). That is what is meant by being the de facto leader.