Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama Fails

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

... or you could simply say "I was unclear" or "I was being rash and reactionary"?

In the interest of time and humility - it's the season for coming together.

I won't because I was very clear in what I said.

Maybe you just don't want to believe that I said it or the fact that it was said.

You just need to reconcile with the fact that Rush is not exactly a friend of Black America, in my view and as someone stated earlier, I think is racist and more than enough times his bias has come out and has been called into question and even in McNabb's case,(and to a huge degree Tony Dungy) proven wrong, what more do you need?

So yeah, when he opens up his mouth and let's some stuff like that slide past his teeth, it's not wishful thinking that he hopes the POLICIES fails like you believe...he is hoping that the Black man who was elected and sworn in fails, just so in four years he can say, "I told you so."



That is what I believe...you don't have to like it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I won't because I was very clear in what I said.

Maybe you just don't want to believe that I said it or the fact that it was said.

deepimpact2, ITY?

[CrackerBarrel]

I don't get why what Rush said is racist.

Even if you accept your premise that he is a racist (which I think is at least arguable, but I don't listen to the man and don't really care whether he is or not) than what he said isn't racist.

Rush didn't say "I hope he fails so that we don't ever elect another black president."

He said simply "I hope he fails." In certain areas so do I. Why? Not because I'm a racist, but because big government policies are the opposite of what I believe in. Obama succeeding will mean an astronomical growth in entitlement programs, increased government ownership and control of US industry, sweet deals for the labor unions, tax "rebates" going to people who weren't paying taxes in the first place, and any number of other similar policies. If you are of the opinion that those changes, many of them nearly irreversible, will worsen America than you hope that Obama fails in getting them implemented. Simple as that.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I don't get why what Rush said is racist.

He said simply "I hope he fails." In certain areas so do I. Why? Not because I'm a racist, but because big government policies are the opposite of what I believe in. Obama succeeding will mean an astronomical growth in entitlement programs, increased government ownership and control of US industry, sweet deals for the labor unions, tax "rebates" going to people who weren't paying taxes in the first place, and any number of other similar policies. If you are of the opinion that those changes, many of them nearly irreversible, will worsen America than you hope that Obama fails in getting them implemented. Simple as that.

Agreed

[AGDee]

My first reaction to someone saying "I hope Obama fails" means that they hope this country fails economically and militarily under Obama's watch. That's why I ask those of you who want to see Obama fail what outcomes they hope to see in the next 4 years. Are you really hoping for a Depression? more wars? What constitutes a failure vs. a success. I haven't seen anybody answer that yet.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

My first reaction to someone saying "I hope Obama fails" means that they hope this country fails economically and militarily under Obama's watch. That's why I ask those of you who want to see Obama fail what outcomes they hope to see in the next 4 years. Are you really hoping for a Depression? more wars? What constitutes a failure vs. a success. I haven't seen anybody answer that yet.

I'm pretty sure there are readings of "fail" that are somewhere other than "I hope opposing armies defeat ours, people lose jobs and kids go hungry" - it could be as simple as "I hope he fails in his bid for economic stimulus, as it would do more harm than good."

I don't want to speak for others, because I'm not "hoping for failure" or whatever, but you're reading a lot into a statement that was pretty well explained.

Basically, your reading assumes that the opposite of Obama's policies is the failure of a nation. Others could argue Obama's policies represent the failure of a nation, so the opposite would be positive.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm pretty sure there are readings of "fail" that are somewhere other than "I hope opposing armies defeat ours, people lose jobs and kids go hungry" - it could be as simple as "I hope he fails in his bid for economic stimulus, as it would do more harm than good."

I don't want to speak for others, because I'm not "hoping for failure" or whatever, but you're reading a lot into a statement that was pretty well explained.

Basically, your reading assumes that the opposite of Obama's policies is the failure of a nation. Others could argue Obama's policies represent the failure of a nation, so the opposite would be positive.

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?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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.

Originally Posted by AGDee

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 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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

My first reaction to someone saying "I hope Obama fails" means that they hope this country fails economically and militarily under Obama's watch. That's why I ask those of you who want to see Obama fail what outcomes they hope to see in the next 4 years. Are you really hoping for a Depression? more wars? What constitutes a failure vs. a success. I haven't seen anybody answer that yet.

I did answer it here:

Originally Posted by KSigkid

To me, when someone says that they hope a President fails, I read that as meaning that they hope his policies fail.

You're also stating that Obama's policies are good for "the health and welfare of the country," and honestly, that's just your opinion at this point (as well as the opinion of those who voted for Obama). There's nothing to say that his policies will be successful, and we won't know that for quite a while.

There are people who have legitimate problems with his platform, and there are a lot of people who think that his policies won't help the country and who hope he fails in implementing them. That's just the nature of being a President - some people want your policies to fail, because they don't agree with said policies.

I'm by no means a Rush fan, but I see no problem with what he said.

I understand Rush says some ridiculous stuff, and that he can be a real lightning rod...but you're stretching it a bit here.

Edited because KSigRC's statement restates my post in a much clearer manner:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm pretty sure there are readings of "fail" that are somewhere other than "I hope opposing armies defeat ours, people lose jobs and kids go hungry" - it could be as simple as "I hope he fails in his bid for economic stimulus, as it would do more harm than good."

I don't want to speak for others, because I'm not "hoping for failure" or whatever, but you're reading a lot into a statement that was pretty well explained.

Basically, your reading assumes that the opposite of Obama's policies is the failure of a nation. Others could argue Obama's policies represent the failure of a nation, so the opposite would be positive.

[KSigkid]

Broken into two posts because the original post wasn't clear...

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Some of you would defend him to the death hmm?

Ummm...no, that's not what the majority of people are saying. If you want to get inflammatory about it, that's your choice, but that's a mischaracterization of what most of the people are saying in this thread.

[nate2512]

I have to disagree with the fact that Donovan McNabb is superstar quarterback. Yes, he is a good solid quarterback, but he isn't headed to the hall of fame. While he has been selected to five pro bowls, of which he was only selected to start one. He has no league MVP selections. Has yet to win a super bowl. Sure he's a good quarterback, he wins games.

ETA: Sure McNabb is good enough to start, no one is arguing that, but for a STARTING quarterback, he's mediocre at best.

and as for the limbaugh case, i think first we should define failure.

1. The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends: the failure of an experiment.
2. One that fails: a failure at one's career.
3. The condition or fact of being insufficient or falling short: a crop failure.
4. A cessation of proper functioning or performance: a power failure.
5. Nonperformance of what is requested or expected; omission: failure to report a change of address.
6. The act or fact of failing to pass a course, test, or assignment.
7. A decline in strength or effectiveness.
8. The act or fact of becoming bankrupt or insolvent.

I would have to agree that according to the definintion above, I would like see Obama fail in accordance with defintion 1, 3, 4, 5*, 7*.

* Now these two are tricky and I feel I must justify myself, I disagree with what most people expect of him. Most people expect him to push his liberal agenda of radical ideaologies that I do not believe will be good for this country. In that I hope he fails. He may be a very strong and effective president, but if it's strong and effective in terms that I disagree with, it doesn't do me any good.

As far as anything Obama has done so far. I disagree with everything. And I can now rightfully say that now that he's actually done it.

For everyone of who bashed bush and were part of the result of his low approval rating, you say that because I agreed with him, I was an idiot. Well, I am now on the other side of the fence, I disapprove of Obama's job as president, and now, all these people who preach tolerance are going to say that I'm an idiot for disagreeing. I'm not giving up my morals or standards just becuase it isn't the popular thing to do. You people need to look at yourself and decide just how fucking hypocritical you are. If a radical had said these things about Bush he would have been PRAISED. Where's the JUSTICE in first amendmant?

[DaemonSeid]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by AGDee

My first reaction to someone saying "I hope Obama fails" means that they hope this country fails economically and militarily under Obama's watch. That's why I ask those of you who want to see Obama fail what outcomes they hope to see in the next 4 years. Are you really hoping for a Depression? more wars? What constitutes a failure vs. a success. I haven't seen anybody answer that yet.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Some of you would defend him to the death hmm?

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

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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.