Rush Limbaugh hopes Obama Fails

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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 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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.