• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House fires back at Rush Limbaugh

winston53660 said:
Nope that is not what I meant. I would not say the bush policies have been a giant success considering what is going on these days. That does not mean I did not want them to be a success though.
Click to expand...




:lol: you are talking in circles my friend.....


Either you wanted bush's privitation of SS and his tax cuts to succseed and therefore supported them, or you did not.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: you are talking in circles my friend.....


Either you wanted bush's privitation of SS and his tax cuts to succseed and therefore supported them, or you did not.
Click to expand...

Nope I'm not talking in circles. I'm humble enough to put the nation before ideology.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This is not an answer.



Humility has little to do with facts.
Click to expand...

And the facts are bush's policies have not been a great success considering the position we are in now. I wish they had succeeded though.
 
winston53660 said:
And the facts are bush's policies have not been a great success considering the position we are in now. I wish they had succeeded though.
Click to expand...

So you blame bush and bush only for the mess we are in today?


Here is the difference, If Obama's policies "succseede" rights, and freedoms will be limited and we will move into a statist society.


I want that to fail. Because if he is successful, America does not succede.

But I see your point now.


I still don't want Obama's policies to succede for my childerens sake.


I didn't want Bush to sucsede at the end, his bailout money is something that help start this nonsense.
 
winston53660 said:
Really sad that you would toss the nation into depression because of your ideology.
Click to expand...
He really believes that Obama's **** will work. Hahaha, come on.
 
American said:
He really believes that Obama's **** will work. Hahaha, come on.
Click to expand...
Oh, it WILL work -- in fact, it will do exactly what The Obama and His ilk want it to do:

It will succeed in nationalizing huge portions of our economy, it will succeed in socializing the costs associated with same, and it will succeed in teaching people that they can depend on government to bail them out of their bad decisions -- even decisions that were made deliberately or because of greed -- using rich peoples' money.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
did you want Bush's SS privitization to succeed?

Did you want Bush's Tax cuts "to the rich" to succeed?



I find it absurd how those who spent the last 8 years bashing bush are now calling for anyone to support Obama. :lol:
Click to expand...

The way I see it, is that when people on the left wanted certain plans to fail, they were attacked as being un-American, unpatriotic, etc.

Now that a leftist is in the white house, after 8 years of bashing those who wanted Bush's policies to fail, the right is actively hoping that Obama's policies will fail and are now being attacked as un-American, unpatriotic, etc.

What this tells me, more than anything else, is that people on both sides are raging hypocrites. If someone on the left wanted Bush's policies to fail, labeling those on the right as unpatriotic for wanting Obama's to fail is hypocricy.

And conversely, if those on the right, like Rush, labeled lefties as unpatriotic for not supporting Bush's policies, they are hypocrites to now do the same thing while using the same defenses as those on the left did for the last 8 years.

I don't agree with either side being labeled as "unpatriotic" or "un-American" because they want policies they disagree with to fail. I was against it for the last 8 years, and I'm still against it now.



Now, on a personal note, even when I disagree with a policy, once it is passed, I hope it will succeed. What I want more than anything else once legislation passes that I adamantly oppose is that I am the one who is wrong, and that my fears will NOT come true.

The Iraq war was just such a case. I opposed entering that war but once we entered it, I wanted (and still want) nothing short of complete success.

So if I want a policy to fail, I want it to do so in congress. I do not want it to pass. But once it does pass, I hope that I'm wrong more than I want the other side to be wrong.

In essence, I'd rather hope that my predictions fail, not the policy.
 
Re: White House fires back at Rush Limbaugh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
did you want Bush's SS privitization to succeed?

Did you want Bush's Tax cuts "to the rich" to succeed?



I find it absurd how those who spent the last 8 years bashing bush are now calling for anyone to support Obama.
The way I see it, is that when people on the left wanted certain plans to fail, they were attacked as being un-American, unpatriotic, etc.

Now that a leftist is in the white house, after 8 years of bashing those who wanted Bush's policies to fail, the right is actively hoping that Obama's policies will fail and are now being attacked as un-American, unpatriotic, etc.

What this tells me, more than anything else, is that people on both sides are raging hypocrites. If someone on the left wanted Bush's policies to fail, labeling those on the right as unpatriotic for wanting Obama's to fail is hypocricy.

And conversely, if those on the right, like Rush, labeled lefties as unpatriotic for not supporting Bush's policies, they are hypocrites to now do the same thing while using the same defenses as those on the left did for the last 8 years.

I don't agree with either side being labeled as "unpatriotic" or "un-American" because they want policies they disagree with to fail. I was against it for the last 8 years, and I'm still against it now.



Now, on a personal note, even when I disagree with a policy, once it is passed, I hope it will succeed. What I want more than anything else once legislation passes that I adamantly oppose is that I am the one who is wrong, and that my fears will NOT come true.
Click to expand...


So you want nationalized health care, government control of industry, an AWB, and other statist invasions of privacy to be succsessful?


I ask in an effort for you to see my point.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So you blame bush and bush only for the mess we are in today?


Here is the difference, If Obama's policies "succseede" rights, and freedoms will be limited and we will move into a statist society.


I want that to fail. Because if he is successful, America does not succede.

But I see your point now.


I still don't want Obama's policies to succede for my childerens sake.


I didn't want Bush to sucsede at the end, his bailout money is something that help start this nonsense.
Click to expand...


Okay when the banks are nationalized let me know:roll:

This economic mess was a long time in the making and must be dealt with otherwise fall out will have serious repercussions. I don't agree with everything being done but I sure as hell don't want failure.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay when the banks are nationalized let me know:roll:
Click to expand...

You do not see how close we are to this? :shock:

This economic mess was a long time in the making and must be dealt with otherwise fall out will have serious repercussions. I don't agree with everything being done but I sure as hell don't want failure.
Click to expand...


I want the economy to succede, I don't want it dragged out by obama's statist goals.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You do not see how close we are to this? :shock:
Click to expand...

Like I said let me know when it happens.:roll:



I want the economy to succede, I don't want it dragged out by obama's statist goals.
Click to expand...

If some government involvement gets the economy working again I'm all for it. I can put my ideology aside. Propping up the banks is the path being taken and I wish them all the success in the world to get capitalism and the economy working again.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I want Obama's America to fail. Statism and socialism is not the America I want to live in.
Click to expand...
Now, now, Rev. I think you and I have already had this conversation in another thread, and you still have yet to show conclusively that this country is on a path to statism. We'll NEVER get there because there are just too many checks and balances in our three branches of government, specifically the judicial branch. But I digress...

Tell me did you want Bush to succeeds?
Click to expand...
Initially, I did even when I felt he was the wrong candidate to lead this country (not to mention I still believe the Republican party stole the election both times "W" ran. But that's in the past...). It wasn't until he began to lie to the American people about Iraq (i.e., WMDs and their involvement with terrism against the U.S.) did I want him to fail. And fail he did! He took his eye off the prize and many Americans paid a heavy price for it.

But no. At first I wanted him to do well. It wasn't until much later did I want him out of office! In the case of Pres. Obama, the Republican/Conservatives wanted him to fail well before he ever had a chance to succeed. To me, that's just not fair. But we are talking politics where fairness has no meaning nor relevance.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So you want nationalized health care, government control of industry, an AWB, and other statist invasions of privacy to be succsessful?


I ask in an effort for you to see my point.
Click to expand...

I want legislation for these things to fail to pass into law, yes. I truly hope they fail in that sense. But if they do pass into law, then I hope that they at least succeed in their desired goals, and not according to how I predict that they will.

Let me look at each point you've made individually to illustrate what I mean by hoping they don't fail.

Nationalized Healthcare: Let's say this passes through legislation. I then hope that it actually works. Every person gets high-quality health-care and we as a nation become the healthiest, happiest bunch of assholes in the world.

I hope that my predictions about this plan: that it will be an abysmal failure, that it will make health-care generally lower quality (long waiting lists for surgeries, etc), that it will cause a bigger nanny-state than we already have, etc are all wrong.


Government control of Industry: If such legislation passes, again I hope I'm wrong and that it works in the sense that it makes the country better and stronger. I can't see myself how this could happen, but I'd hope that I'm wrong about that.

Assault Weapons Ban: I would hope that if such legislation passes, it drastically reduces crime. I don't think it has any hope of succeeding, but I'd hope that since it is already passed that it would have such an effect.



In other words, I am not saying we should support the plans as they are in legislation. We should definitely oppose them at that time while they are simply being proposed. It would be insanity to support stuff that you adamantly feel is destined for failure.

But once these things are no longer just a possibility, but they indeed are the reality, we should hope that we are wrong about them. Personally, I'd much rather be wrong about their destructive nature than be proven right about my predictions.

To give an example, I don't support the Patriot act, but I sure hope that since it exists, it works as planned and doesn't fail to work as planned. I just don't think it will do that in the long run. But my fear that in the long run it will be a failure doesn't change the fact that I don't want it to fail.
 
Objective Voice said:
Now, now, Rev. I think you and I have already had this conversation in another thread, and you still have yet to show conclusively that this country is on a path to statism. We'll NEVER get there because there are just too many checks and balances in our three branches of government, specifically the judicial branch. But I digress...
Click to expand...


Control over which gun you can own, what schools your child must go to, making doctors perform operations, what healthcare you have, owning stakes in banks, auto, and other industry......

We are absolutley on that path...


EVERY solution Obama proposes is government as the answer. Statism.

(take this as my response to that other thread as well. ;) "tried again" and I do say "succsess" myself)




From Exceptionalism to Statism - Michael G. Franc - The Corner on National Review Online



Initially, I did even when I felt he was the wrong candidate to lead this country (not to mention I still believe the Republican party stole the election both times "W" ran. But that's in the past...). It wasn't until he began to lie to the American people about Iraq (i.e., WMDs and their involvement with terrism against the U.S.) did I want him to fail. And fail he did! He took his eye off the prize and many Americans paid a heavy price for it.
Click to expand...

This sort of close minded liberal talking points I can do with out.


But no. At first I wanted him to do well. It wasn't until much later did I want him out of office! In the case of Pres. Obama, the Republican/Conservatives wanted him to fail well before he ever had a chance to succeed. To me, that's just not fair. But we are talking politics where fairness has no meaning nor relevance.
Click to expand...


We want him to fail in nationalizing our economy, yes.
 
Tucker Case said:
I want legislation for these things to fail to pass into law, yes. I truly hope they fail in that sense. But if they do pass into law, then I hope that they at least succeed in their desired goals, and not according to how I predict that they will.

Let me look at each point you've made individually to illustrate what I mean by hoping they don't fail.
Click to expand...


Thier desired controls in many instances are "control" as a libertarian, I can't stomache this.

Nationalized Healthcare: Let's say this passes through legislation. I then hope that it actually works. Every person gets high-quality health-care and we as a nation become the healthiest, happiest bunch of assholes in the world.

I hope that my predictions about this plan: that it will be an abysmal failure, that it will make health-care generally lower quality (long waiting lists for surgeries, etc), that it will cause a bigger nanny-state than we already have, etc are all wrong.
Click to expand...

We just have to look at the DMV.... I hope it fails before it is implemented and a real market solution can be found.


Government control of Industry: If such legislation passes, again I hope I'm wrong and that it works in the sense that it makes the country better and stronger. I can't see myself how this could happen, but I'd hope that I'm wrong about that.
Click to expand...

Again, I am a free man, I do not want governments controlling whether or not I get a loan for my business. I am not black or female enough for them.

Assault Weapons Ban: I would hope that if such legislation passes, it drastically reduces crime. I don't think it has any hope of succeeding, but I'd hope that since it is already passed that it would have such an effect.
Click to expand...

94 AWB had 0 effect on crime, this statist goal is simply about control.

I hope he fails miserably here.

In other words, I am not saying we should support the plans as they are in legislation. We should definitely oppose them at that time while they are simply being proposed. It would be insanity to support stuff that you adamantly feel is destined for failure.

But once these things are no longer just a possibility, but they indeed are the reality, we should hope that we are wrong about them. Personally, I'd much rather be wrong about their destructive nature than be proven right about my predictions.

To give an example, I don't support the Patriot act, but I sure hope that since it exists, it works as planned and doesn't fail to work as planned. I just don't think it will do that in the long run. But my fear that in the long run it will be a failure doesn't change the fact that I don't want it to fail.
Click to expand...



I see your point and have no problem with it in certain aspects. Though if it grows the government's reach, I hope it fails.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I see your point and have no problem with it in certain aspects. Though if it grows the government's reach, I hope it fails.
Click to expand...

As do I. I fervently hope these things do not pass. Like I said, in that sense I hope they fail. I hope most of these plans never see the light of day.

But if they do, I hope the hell I'm wrong about them, because if I'm right, everything will be in the ****ter.
 
Tucker Case said:
As do I. I fervently hope these things do not pass. Like I said, in that sense I hope they fail. I hope most of these plans never see the light of day.

But if they do, I hope the hell I'm wrong about them, because if I'm right, everything will be in the ****ter.
Click to expand...





:lol: As we swirl around here, where did you think we were? In a lazy river in at the "Atlantis" hotel? :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
94 AWB had 0 effect on crime, this statist goal is simply about control.
Click to expand...
Indeed -- and if the 1994 AWB had no efect, what argument IS there for another ban?

Supportable argument, I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom