What I think some of you are doing and I understand it, in your attempts to clarify and explain his words, is that you are softening what he says.

But I honestly believe that some of you are closing your eyes to what he is really saying underneath his 'noble' disagreement he has with the president.

Some of you simply don't want to believe that that's what he meant.

Some of you want to believe that he is more progressive than what his merits (or demerits) says about him was well meaning in his words.

My statement isn't about the policies because the quote I heard was not about policies. It was "I hope he fails" That's pretty wide open to interpretation. However, I was trying to get a feel for what people would consider a failure vs. a success in a President on a more broad basis.

Additionally, I'm curious whether it's a success or a failure if the outcome is good but the means to get there is not in line with your philosophies. The bailouts, for example. Lots of people are against them. If they do end up preventing a depression, the loans are paid back within a few years and the economy grows strong again, people keep their jobs or jobs increase, resulting in more income for the government through the interest achieved by giving out those loans and the income taxes of individuals who are working instead of being on unemployment, etc, etc, then is it a success, even if you didn't think they should do it in the first place?

I think the gist of it isn't hoping the country fails. It's hope that he fails to accomplish his specific policy goals because I'm of the opinion that they are very likely to make things worse.

I don't hope he fails in the broad "hope" goals. It's the "change" part I at least anticipate having a problem with, because growing government is a change in the wrong direction from my point of view.

So essentially the gist of the argument is that the country will recover better on its own than with big government, so we're hoping for gridlock so none of his legislative agenda goes through because a lot of it will be nearly impossible to undue even if the Republicans had control of both houses and the presidency in the future.

I don't think it's a matter of him being more or less progressive; it's a matter of taking what he says at face value, versus assigning it some deeper or more nefarious meaning.

I was taking your statement in more the general sense - i.e. that hoping that the President "fails" is automatically a regrettable thing to say.

If you want to assign a different context to it because of it was Limbaugh, that's one thing...I think the rest of us are evaluating the statement largely independent from the person who said it.

I can only speak for myself...but if a policy that I disagree with (like, for example, the bailouts) turns out well (not just for the next year or two, but years into the future), then I'll say that it was a success.

I have no doubt Rush Limbaugh is a prejudiced angry old douche bag (although I also have no doubt that at least some of his provocative language is carefully crafted to 'offend' to increase ratings).

Even with that lens, I think you are 'hardening' this specific statement unnecessarily. There is probably a racial subtext, but I don't feel it is to the level you're raising it.

It has nothing to do with "nobility" and everything to do with pragmatism.

And that therein is the problem.

You can't separate the statement from him because HE said it.

This is why I cannot understand why some of you here are trying to translate it and make it mean (whitewashing it as it were) something else coming from him.

Again, if this statement was coming from someone a lot more respected on both sides, then a statement of this caliber would be looked at differently ( I think I said this earlier) and hold a lot more weight.

:rolleyes: Disagreeing with you on this particular point =/= defending Rush Limbaugh to the death.

Some are taking what he said at face value, notwithstanding inane, idiotic and hateful things he has said at other times. You are not. I don't think anyone has disagreed that what he said could be viewed the way you understand it. What people have disagreed with is the idea that the statement quoted in your opening post can only be understood the way you understand it.

On its face, the statement indicates only a deep disagreement with Obama's policies, and it is not unreasonable for someone to understand it that way. It requires context to understand it the way you do. You may be right as to what he really thinks, but you cannot support your view just by looking at the four corners of his statement. That's what people have been saying in response to you -- it's not so much defending Rush (something I'd rarely if ever bother to do) as it is looking for clarity from you. You are the one translating -- and you may be translating it quite accurately. But that translation requires context and backing up, because, as already stated, on its face it's an innocuous statement.

The last sentence is the problem here. If you evalute the statement with regard to who said it then I think you'd understand DS much better.
The statement was made by Rush who is definitely prejudice against black people. He is also considered a racist (though some may argue otherwise).
So if a blatantly prejudice and arguably racist person says I hope the POTUS fails you may wonder why he would say that.
Now, even the staunchest conservative probably wouldn't want the POTUS to fail at commanding the military, upholding the constitution, and protecting our nation.
So, if this person (if for only selfish reasons) would not want the president to fail to protect the nation and keep us from complete financial ruin (because that would be counter productive to self interests) why does he want the president to fail?
Now remeber that this person has an overwhelmingly strong dislike for black people no matter what their position in the world. I give you three guesses as to why this person would hope President Obama would fail...
1. Because
2. Obama's
3. Black

The clarity is in his history.

The clarity is what he has said in his past makes one looking at his present statement and calling what he said suspect.

His past statements, actions and POVs, which is so abundantly clear is the reason why you should look past the makeup applied to the face of his statements.

Scroll back a few and look for some quotes by him, I left earlier.

Ok. Now explain this for me. I'm not a racist and I also would prefer if the economy recovers and we win the war on terror. So why do I hope Obama fails? If you equate hoping the President fails to achieve his legislative agenda with hoping the country fails, the only reasons you are ever going to be able to come up with are personal dislikes and biases. We are saying that the comments make a lot more sense if you separate Obama's legislative agenda failing from the country failing because, unless you are of the opinion that Obama's way is the only way to do things that could possibly succeed, they are distinct from one another.

If you would prefer that the country succeeds and you are not a racist that does not mean that you have to want Obama's policies to succeed. The only problem here is that if Obama's policies fail then the country will fail. We're at a point where (no matter if Jmac or Obama were president) the policies implemented must be successful in order for the country to be successful. So, this isn't Obama specific. Im not say that Obama's policies are the only ones that will work, but I am saying that if he fails the nation fails. The same would apply to Jmac if he were president.

You cannot hope that a nation will succeed and at the same time hope that its leader fails. Thats like saying I hope horse x wins the race, but I hope Jockey X loses. It cant happen. Either horse x and Jockey x are are both successful or neiter is succesful. You may have wanted a different rider to fill the position of jockey x, but they didnt. You may want jockey x to have a different riding style, but he doesnt. At this point he's on the horse. So, if your desire for horse x to win is greater than your dislike for jockey x and his riding style then you've got to hope for jockey x's success. And if your dislike for Jockey X is greater than your desire for horse x's win (a win that you've bet everything on) then you have to take a step back and evaluate why that is. In the case of Rush his history shows that there is a strong possibility that the answer to that why question is the race of the jockey.

He did say majority and not all.

I see where you're going, but I disagree with your thought process here, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

I should say for the record that I'm not someone who is hoping that Obama "fails;" I'm just hoping that he backs off of his platform in some places, and that he changes his mind on some of the things he said during the election.

But, I think we'll just end up talking in circles if we try to debate our differences (not that it doesn't happen in other threads).

That is a great way of looking at it.

One should never hope that a president fails.

We may not like who is in charge but when he fails, then that simply makes the job much harder on the next one that comes in behind him.

To some degree, that is the case now.

I disagree that the leader needs to succeed in getting his legislative agenda passed for the country to succeed. I'm of the opinion that the country works best when we have a gridlock that keeps the government from doing a whole lot, because as a general rule the government messing around may well make things worse. Take for example Clinton's second term. Very little of his legislative agenda ever got passed because the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and blocked much of it. And the country did the best it has recently. If you are of the opinion that much of what the government can do is only going to make things worse (which is a fairly standard small government conservative position) than you are of the opinion that the country will be best off if we let the economy balance itself out and rebound without mucking around in it any more than we absolutely have to. To continue your metaphor it's the idea that we have a horse which will win on its own just running as it naturally would, but if the jockey succeeds in how he wants to run the race it's going to slow the horse down.

Or maybe a more apt metaphor would be that the horse fell down but is in the process of getting back up on its own. Kicking the horse and screaming "Get up!" all while loading more and more on its back is just gonna slow the process down.

I'm afraid I agree.

Thanks...sometimes I like to think I have a coherent thought or two, it makes up for some of the other gems I come up with...haha.

Interesting. I don't think it applies to me. However, I do know a lot of people who listen to Rush who aren't racist, and I don't know how you can arrive at such a generalization - that the majority of his listeners are racist - without knowing a majority of his listeners. I was being snarky at first because I don't care for sweeping generalizations that have the potential to include me. However now I am not: I am genuinely curious as to why you believe most of Rush's audience to be racist. Simply because they listen?

(And for those who have noted that he said majority and that I could be in the minority, I know that - and I know that my comment did not reflect that. :) Again, I'm just curious as to the evidence behind the post.)

May I ask you to be more specific? In what way did I downplay racism? Perhaps the comment that preciousjeni quoted? If so, I will clarify. When I stated that there are some things that I might think are okay but they aren't, I don't mean to say that I think it's okay to use racial slurs and otherwise discriminate against others on the basis of race. I simply mean that I am glad that I have "followed" the GC race wars, as I have been exposed to many new opinions and theories. In particular, I have learned a lot from Chaos/DrPhil. (Really) Is it sad that my education on this very real problem has come from a fraternity/sorority chat site? Probably. But I am not familiar with other credible sources to get it. Is that sad again? Yes. But there's a lot of crap out there, and I don't know how to wade through it to get to the good stuff. I guess I have never taken the time to try because it doesn't have a direct impact on my life. But I am interested in the dialogue nonetheless and would love to further my education on these issues.

I have never been a victim of racism. The "racism" that I have been witness to is limited to jokes and inappropriate comments. Which some would argue as actually prejudice because there is no direct issue of power. (Racism = Prejudice + Power) I AM NOT justifying these comments and jokes. I am trying to explain my inexperience and complete lack of knowledge in these very weighty matters.

I have learned that I have a lot to learn. And that just because I might think (or thought) racism has diminished in America, those that have been (and continue to be) discriminated against might not agree. I've really been thinking about it a lot lately for some reason (maybe because of the recent race wars) and thinking about my own experiences and whether or not I have said or done something in the past that could be considered racist or prejudice. I guess that's why I reacted to the statement about most of Rush's listeners being racist. I don't listen for 3 hours a day/5 days a week, and what interests me is his commentary on policies - foreign/domestic/fiscal/etc. As I mentioned to DS, I hadn't even heard of the Halle Berry/Halfrican thing until he mentioned it in this thread.

To further explain the statement PJ quoted, because of some of the things I have read on GC, I have really sought to examine my own perceptions and ideas of racism and prejudice. And I listen carefully to statements made by others to evaluate what might be behind it. I respect that I will never understand how deeply racism affects some Americans.

Bottom line: I love dialogue. And if I have made a racist or otherwise racially insensitive comment, I would love to hear why it is so. I will be happy to admit my wrong and will take the education to better myself.

There's maybe only one thing Limbaugh's ever said that I agree with:

Words have meaning.

Now, context can give us insight into intent and can certainly adjust understanding. Limbaugh's past is context. However, sometimes context doesn't change the meaning at all - there is no one effect it can have. If a liar tells me it is cloudy outside, it just might be cloudy.

Hehehehe...but what's the probablility that you believe the liar? ;)

I would stick my head outside to check.

I don't think that is happening here, which is my point.

I understand what you're saying. Checks and balances exist for a reason and I'm glad they do. However, the POTUS is a Dem. The legislative is controlled by Dems. Thus it isnt likely that something similar to Clinton's 2nd term will happen. It's highly likey that a lot of Obama's policies will make it through. Because of this fact I'm saying that this leader's legislative agenda must be successful in order for the country to be successful. I'm not arguing that a leader needs to get his agenda passed for the nation to be successful. Im arguing that since this leader will very likely get his legislation passed it is necessary for his legislation (ie:HIM) to be successful if the nation will be successful. So, in this case if you want the nation to be successful then you want Obama to be successful.

Nope not at all.

I don't need to, I read them the first time.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong; I'm saying you took a shortcut to get there that may or may not be evident to others. Sometimes, you have to play Mapquest. ;)

I knew what he was saying from his first post, but he used a weak example to further his case.

I'm not reading the rest of this.

Very much so. The sad thing is that people were actually fooled by his attempt to clean it up and pretend he was only referring to Obama's policies. Right. lmao

Limbaugh was right about Mcnabb.

Rush Limbaugh is a fat bastard! He's an Oxycontin pain killer abuser that has nothing left but his bloated profanations about anybody who is not him.

And he has a history of publicly saying racially incendiary and insensitive comments. I wonder how shocked he will be when he realizes that "PRESIDENT OBAMA" is his president, too? Probably write a coloring book that sells in the $millions, making more money! :rolleyes:

When Rush says "I hope he fails" in the same sentence including President Obama, regardless if it is his policies or not, listeners have heard it and some people can easily have the POV an FCC violation... Why does he wish failure on a POTUS that is only ~2 days old? How would it best serve Rush?

And with any critical analysis of any public figure's comments up for introspection, the question always needs to be asked, "what about the opposite"...

If McLame won and became POTUS, how will it look if some perceived radical Black man on the radio said, "I hope he fails" Yada-yada?

Well SHIT! I hope Rush's radio show fails! I hope Rush's heart fails! I hope many things about Rush fails! But my hopes won't be fulfilled because Rush is an asshole that survives a long miserable ungrateful life anyways...

After all the shit I have suffered with great failures in the past years, I have lost much hope, dare I say faith...

Good to see others on GC hoping well-wishes for this country.

I am sorry, I don't see how hope can survive with the way most people are these days--especially after seeing the hater juice levied against President Obama from White Supremacists, Al Qaeda and "Lone Wolves" on CNN...

OK, I didn't read this thread because I so need a break from anything political, but I found it highly amusing that the "Rush: What Not To Do Or Say" thread is coming up just a few below this one. :p

Shortcut? Please?

Limbaugh is a long straight road leading nowhere...no mapquest needed.


No ...he was not.

They DID go to the Super Bowl in 2004 right?

Meanwhile that SAME year when his comments were made, what happened to Limbaugh?

Fired from ESPN and then not a few weeks afterwards, brought up on drug charges...Oxycontin remember?

...and you may want to check but he is one of the FEW high caliber QBs playing right now that gets more done with less to work with unlike uuuhhh...the Colts and Patriots?

Gosh, just imagine if T.O. didn't have such a primadonna persona what Philly could have accomplished.

Hell, dare I say, McNabb thus far is one of the ONLY reasons why the Eagles are on the map right now. Since he was drafted how many winning seasons has Philly had?

And ummm what about the NUMBER ONE PICK, Tim Couch? Where is he now?
And if memory serves Philly BOOED the decision (like they tend to boo most things) to draft McNabb.

Who was the last big name QB that Philly had before McNabb?

Randall Cunningham.

So, no...I would have to say Limbaugh was and still is very wrong about McNabb and Black QBs in general.

That is funny. :) Limbaugh is hardheaded and wouldn't get a bid.

This post just made my day. Soror, I give you two thumbs up and a pinky. :D:D

Now, clip ya wings there Ravens fan! Stop dissin' my Patriots! And you should also lay off my boy T.O. ;):D:cool:

Slow ya roll dere...let me explain...hehe

That was NOT a diss to the Pats but the Pats have ALWAYS had some players they have turned into stars and at times Brady has made some of those players into stars and vice versa...and last year getting Randy Moss? A steal.

and truly think of how great T.O. could have been if he had his act together there in Philly.


Now...without peeking who are the WRs that have started for Philly since T.O.'s departure?

Any Pro Bowlers in that group?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html

There's the video link to the interview with Sean Hannity where he discusses it. He says "So I shamelessly say no, I want him to fail if his agenda is a far left collectivism (some people say socialism)... as a conservative heart-felt, deeply... why would I want socialism to succeed?" I think there is your context of what he was saying.

(BTW, I don't read Limbaugh's site, it was linked on Drudge.)

I'm late to this, but I'm traveling so I'm having to catch things online a day or two later. But you know I'm always good for a Daily Show clip in threads like these, so enjoy: Fox News Fear Imbalance http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...fear-imbalance

And DS, you have to know that Limbaugh and the Fox News whack-jobs are going to be beside themselves about every single thing Obama does, it's all they have for the next 4 (or 8) years. You'll get along better and enjoy things more if you just ignore all that noise and certainly refrain from giving it more visibility by posting about all the things you'll think are offensive. Because there will more likely than not be MANY.

I think it's an entirely normal thing to get all caught up with criticism of one's candidate of choice. I know I would get upset when people ripped on Gov. Romney (the person who I most wished would win the Presidency).

But, as you said, there will likely be many criticisms over the next 4 years (some of them legitimate), and that's hard to get used to when you're so invested in a person, their candidacy and, later, their term in office.

Thank you for the video...I missed that the other night...I needed the chuckle...now If I can figure out how to upload some of this stuff to my ipod....

Hmmmm...goooooggggllllleeee

Actually, you're kind of wrong in most of your analysis here, and none of it has anything to do with Limbaugh's statements (not to derail with football talk while the wounds are open).

Think about this: why do advanced metrics always have the Philly offense as better "on paper" than they are on the score sheet? Why do they have a disproportionate amount of their yards happen between the 20s?