Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama Fails

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

And again...what I and some others have said awhile ago, when someone says something, you attach what is said to the speaker.

Based on context of what you said, and by the fact that I don't know you personally, I can only take you at face value. Someone who knows you or has heard you speak on the topic will be able to weigh in on your words and assign credibility to what you said and better understand on where you are coming from when you make the above statement.

Rush on the other hand is a different story and as shown earlier he has stepped over the line more than enough times (I have even pointed it out earlier using his own words) that anyone worth his salt knows when that statement was made he merely wasn't talking about Obama's policies. It is very difficult to simply translate anything Rush says and thinks he is being sincere or goodly when we know his past history of bigotry.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

And again...what I and some others have said awhile ago, when someone says something, you attach what is said to the speaker.

Based on context of what you said, and by the fact that I don't know you personally, I can only take you at face value. Someone who knows you or has heard you speak on the topic will be able to weigh in on your words and assign credibility to what you said and better understand on where you are coming from when you make the above statement.

Rush on the other hand is a different story and as shown earlier he has stepped over the line more than enough times (I have even pointed it out earlier using his own words) that anyone worth his salt knows when that statement was made he merely wasn't talking about Obama's policies. It is very difficult to simply translate anything Rush says and thinks he is being sincere or goodly when we know his past history of bigotry.

I urge you to please explain apartment from pushing his agenda and policies, what else could he possibly fail at?

[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.