It also says volumes about the huge audience that tunes in everynight to watch him. I think his audience continues to grow and grow because Keith Oberman is so obsessed with Billo. Oberman's producers should recognize that he gives Billo free advertising everynight because he seems unable to get through his show without mentioning Billo. It has gone from comical to pathetic. Maybe that's why Oberman is now trying to be a football commentator.

All the same.......
 

It's just the same "usual suspects" that want President Obama and/or his policies to fail. Fortunately, you are in the minority!

These are just a few of the people that want him and America to succeed.

If you can't see the difference between platform planks and the person, there's no hope in understanding. As examples:

1. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are pro-abortion - I'm not, and I truly hope any attempt to expand that agenda fails.

2. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are pro-national health insurance funded by increased taxes (and who will end up paying them?) - I'm against the nationalization of any industry, as the service is always cheapened, and costs still go up due to the need for supplemental coverage. So, I hope any attempt to impose national health care upon us fails.

3. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are terrorist-coddlers in that they believe they can diplomatically cajole bullies - I'm don't agree and believe that attitude places us all at greater risk (That's what Spain, Japan, Indonesia, Colombia, Italy and others have learned the hard way), and I truly hope the policies of F.D. Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain in dealing with international bullies aren't replayed, because the subsequent damage can be as immense as WWiI. Yes, I hope that any attempt to butt-kiss the bullies stalls and never occurs.

4. The F.D.Roosevelt "New Deal" made a lot of money for select "captains of industry" and attempted to turn average Americans into serfs. I see the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration intentions to set up a 21th Century New Deal to do the same. This idea that "only government" can make things better is dictatorial, and reeks of arrogance not seen except in the most maniacal monarchies. Yes, I hope that plan crumbles before it can do harm.

If one was to review posts on this board going back a year or longer, one would find many instances when people condemned the plans and policies of the Republican Party and the Bush administration, hoping that 1) plans would never be activated and 2) policies would cease. What's the difference here?

I do not want to see America degenerate in a socialistic nation where individuality is replaced by a drone-like mentality where before anyone can think or do, they must first find out if it meets "fearless leader's" concept of life. And if it doesn't the individual learns what assimilation really is. I saw the worst of that socialistic concept in Vietnam with the re-education camps, and we're a stone's throw from that when we give up our freedoms for "only government can fix this." Once you start down that track, it's virtually impossible to stop this train.

Yep, shame on me for not joining the Democratic Party and the Obama administration' version of the Hitler-Jugend and accepting everything as being for my own good. You may see a political messiah who you want to follow as "fearless leader" who knows all and does everything right and is infallible. I see a charismatic socialist whom I hope the Democratic Party leadership - filled with self-serving millionaires who have a lot to lose personally - keeps in check. I am much more concerned about the United States continuing according to its Constitution than I am about the "success" of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration in establishing a socialistic state where"government" is master and the citizenry are the government's servants.

I'm no fan of President Kennedy, but his famous quote of "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is timeless. Today's Democratic Party and the Obama administration have effectively perverted that quote, having the citizenry "Ask what your country can do for you, and your country will be the benevolent provider of your life's needs." Nope - when I ask "give us this day our daily bread," it's to a much higher authority.

WAKE UP! It's a New World!
 

Since I disagree with just about everything you said, there's obviously no dialogue here. But pleeaaaaaaaaseeeeeeee don't drag out a Hitler analogy. It's just so telling of your mindset. And why, just because President Obama has an 80 percent approval rating, does that mean it's a "drone-like" mentality? That statement is insulting to the American people.

So, if that's what makes you comfortable, just hang on to the old policies of the last eight years that got us where we are today. It's a new world out there and it's arriving at everyone's front door. Good Luck with that. ;)

Please read your history. SteveZ was not dragging out a Hitler analogy as you want to think, he names the Hitler-Jugend which was the Hitler youth movement that followed their new leader blindly without thought to his end state or agenda.

Many people on both sides are saying they "do not know this man" and what he stands for. Yet as the Hitler-Jugend followed him, they to are following Obama. Actually a good historical analogy. Their are several others but many of the others followed their leadership out of fear. In the 1930's Germany, they followed because this leader told them what they wanted to hear and promised fixing all the problems created by prior leadership during and after WWI.

It's more an analogy of the masses following any leader with blind faith.

President Obama has an approval rating today that is normal for an incoming President who hasn't done anything yet. Time will wear that down.

And yes, the blind adoration of a charismatic has a lot of historical precedents, and so far this time matches many of similar situations. Blind adoration and following is symptomatic of cult-like behavior.

There is no "holding on" of the last eight years, but rather most of the last 220 in trying to keep the US from emulating the USSR. If someday you get beyond your hatred of Pres. Bush, you may see that.

And whether you want to accept it or not, it is not a "new world out there," but the same dangerous one that has had most of this planet involved in some kind of warfare since homo sapiens threw his first rock. The flower-child mentality hasn't changed that. Somehow, I just don't see Mr. Putin, Mr. bin Laden, Mr. Ahmadinejad and others like them accepting a posey from someone and smiling happily into consolation.

If there is no dialogue, it is because of a lack of believe that one could be wrong. I accept the fact that I could be wrong, and want to learn as much as I can about why and how people believe what they do, in the hope of becoming less wrong about things. I actually hope to be proven wrong on how I see things, as I have been taught that education requires a willingness to accept facts not before known to modify an opinion, and humility starts with accepting that one does not always possess all of the facts. Arrogance is simply intellectual bullying or nastiness when facts become impediments to one's position.

When you open the front door to view that "new world," here's hoping it still allows free thought...

Still bad....
 

Sorry, I do know my history but I still think this goes back to fear-mongering and a bad analogy. This is name calling just wrapped in a cloak of faux patriotism. Why is it that some people cannot accept that others are NOT just blindly following President Obama. That they truly believe in his policies. That's what I find so insulting to the American people. Are you saying then that 80% of Americans are now just a flock of sheep? Are you saying that you, and the Conservatives, are the ONLY ones that have studied the issues? Give me a break!

The American public has voted. He's only been in office for three days for God's sake! Support your President. These are unprecedented times of crisis. Suck it up and pitch in and help.;)

Since I disagree with just about everything you said, there's obviously no dialogue here.

With that statement Chelsea, I think you've made l2's, SteveZ and others' points. There is no dialogue because you say so !!!! There is no discussion because you won't allow yourself to think of any other viewpoint but the One's !!! Facts and data be danged.

Good luck with that.

chelsea24. others, take a shot at it.

What are the facts and data? He's only been in office for 3 days. OMG! :laugh:

When the President has to deal with the world and place a singe American face to the international community, he will be supported. We are all one when in dealing with the rest of the international community. However, within this nation, he will be challenged - as all before him - to demonstrate the why and how - to the individuals, not the adoring herd, amongst us. Why should it be any different for Mr. Obama than the 43 presidents before him?

80% of Americans (that approval rating) bends with the wind, and will bend each time someone's personal ox is gored.

Yes, Mr. Obama has been elected - not coronated. He will have to expect performance reviews by the citizenry every day he is in office - just like the 43 before him - from everyone within the citizenty. Supporting the president is not necessarily agreeing with EVERYTHING he says or proposes. If you believe that blind obedience to party doctrine or administration policies is "supporting," that is your choice. I like to think for myself.

But he has been campaigning for 18 months or longer. He has indicated a socialist agenda and strong central government which abridges States' Rights and individual choice. That's what's on the table.

I can respect your believing in all his policies and goals - the question is, can you respect that others don't.

I honestly don't think most Obama supporters know what his objectives, policies, and goals are.

It's been really interesting reading
 

through this thread. My observations of what has been posted so far is that most people have given honest, thoughtful, ideas or opinions and then there are the few that will defend only those ideas that don't conflict with their classic left viewpoints. Freedom of speech, thought, ideas, actions, for the liberal left are reserved for them only. All others need not apply.

Historically, in spite of the dictionary meaning of the word liberal, liberal governments are the ones that want a strong central government that TELLS us whats best for us, instead of us taking care of ourselves. The liberals want to regulate every aspect of our lives because they feel that THEY are more capable of knowing what is good for us.

Conservative governments, in spite of what the word conservative says in the dictionary, want less government in our lives. A conservative government actually WANTS us to be more responsible for our lives. The conservatives aim is to deregulate our lives because we are capable of making our own decisions.

As a conservative, I feel that no one is saying that they want a failed government of either party. Conservatives simply want a government that has minimal intrusions into their lives and federal policies that defend us, not control us. Nazism, socialism, communism have all had strong central governments, governments that are liberal (controlling) of their people. Free peoples fear that type of government and are ever watchful for it.

Yes.
 

I do respect other's opinions. But, not when they are peppered with words like "blind faith", "adoring herd" or coronation, it becomes not only ridiculous, but insulting.

If you want to use terms like that, you should have used them on Bush. Here was a man that wanted to be Emperor. Unfortunately for him, the citizens saw that he wasn't wearing any clothing.

Oh Yeah....
 

Conservatives want less government until some disaster hit's their own home. Then the "it's all about me" mentality comes out. :ohdear:

Chels, The terminology you used to describe Pres. Bush and those around him was brutal. That apparently was okay. "Insulting" must be interpretive by "I like" or "I don't like."

Yes, conservatives, and progressive neanderthals, prefer less government at ALL times. We don't need "government" to take over our personal responsibilities so we don't have to be responsible for anything. We can think for ourselves and don't need "daddy" or "mommy" overseeing our lives and telling us what's good for us.

When the socialism gets to a point that it tells you how long you can live, and when compulsory end-of-life shall be, maybe then the leftists might actually believe that government is finally too big - maybe...

Your "it's all about me" comment, I really don't understand.

Wow!
 

I occurs to me SteveZ, that if you and I have this much trouble agreeing on anything, just imagine what goes on in the Senate and Congress! Wow, and we don't have the weight of the world on our shoulders. Personally, I'm wishing everyone good luck at this point.

Quite frankly, I think both of us are taking this to the extreme. I'm betting all is more moderate than is being foretold.

I'm not a blind sheep, but I am an optimist and all I was asking for was to give our (yours too) President more than 3 days to see what plays out. Again, this is an unprecedented crisis and more than any other President, he needs our support. It was not my intention to regurgitate the election, the votes have been cast.;)

Obama has made it pretty clear what he intends to do.

I think that's really the main thing dividing our country. Conservatives are generally more self-sufficient, self-reliant and take more personal responsibility for their current circumstances and future promise. The left tends to relay more on the government and solutions provided by others for their future outcomes and general well being.

Much as the very debate is here, some of us want the government out of the way and let the people get this country moving yet others see the government as the only way out and the only solution to our problems.

It seems to me over the years there are more and more people with their hands out looking for entitlements.

Obama plays into that sentiment very well. The government can be all things to all people and apparently that's what at least 1/2 our county wants.

The next 4 - 8 years will be a battle for our soul and I have no doubt our founding fathers are turning over in their graves.

For some reason, I'm reminded of a classic scene in Men in Black, where Will Smith has just fired his weapon at the dangerous alien, gets chastised by Tommy Lee Jones for the shooting, responds with a comment about an alien spaceship ready to destroy Earth. Tommy Lee Jones replies with, "There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they Do... Not... Know about it!"

This economic crisis is "just another crisis" that occurs during a nation's history. I can think of many with significant impact that the public knows about: 9/11, Cuban Missile, Dot.Com crash, Lockerbie, Vietnam, Gulf I and Gulf II are a few. Also, there have been others which didn't get public exposure, for good reason.

All presidents need support, but they don't need 300 million yes-men agreeing to everything. All plans and ideas need to be subjected to hard scrutiny, because if they can't hold their own to the scrutiny, they may not be so hot after all. The concept of "loyal opposition" as devil's advocate is a proven one which has great merit in a free society.

Thank heaven we are free to debate - many others don't have that right to share ideas and opinions, but must march to a single drummer.

We have it made!

Reading All This Again Makes It Clear That We're ALL Conservatives At Heart
 

I know I am. I sure don't want any more government dictating what I do every day. Or providing for me when I don't need it. I do believe that we've gotten our government expenditures and those to whom services are provided a little out of whack. There are many examples, but to have the government provide subsidized healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it, while 50 million Americans don't have health insurance calls out for correction.

But the major differences that we've been talking about here and in other threads are the government's reaction to the slumping economy. Some believe that it's just another recession and will work itself out with little more than a few tax cuts. That's worked before, it should work again.

I believe our situation is far more critical than that. I don't believe that tax cuts, regardless of how big and to whom, will result in increased demand, more production and more jobs -- the economic recovery we all seek. In fact, if were up to me alone I wouldn't enact any tax cuts right now. It's not that I never would -- it's just that economic circumstances are so dire that I don't think the few extra bucks people would get would cause them to spend in the way needed to begin to re-energize the economy. For that matter, I probably wouldn't spend very much money on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects right now either. Again, maybe sometime in the future, but not right now -- it would simply take too long to have much of an effect on the spending-demand-production-jobs cycle. (I might say that for political reasons, neither of the things I would avoid will be avoided -- Congress will do both for political reasons, whether I like it or not.)

What I WOULD do is pump every available dollar into fixing the U.S. banking system. It is broken and cannot or will not fix itself without massive government intervention. The leverage provided by loans is the grease that makes our economy grow, so with no source of credit because of the broken banks, our economy might take decades to recover. The only way banks can "fix themselves" is to increase their capital. The only way they can do that is by selling equity, such as in common stock, or retaining earnings into capital accounts. Right now, there is no demand whatsoever for the stocks of banks and there are no earnings from which to retain for capital-strengthening purposes. The problem with this alternative is that it's going to cost more money than we can possibly imagine right now -- a lot more than the "stimulus bill" that President Obama is pressuring Congress to pass.

There are probably lots of ways to fix the banks' capital adequacy problems -- have the government buy all the bad loans, inject equity into the banks (as has been done so far), or even form a new "government national bank" to make loans and compete with the privately-owned banks. I don't know the answer, but I know that getting all the bad loans off the bank's books is what will be needed to get the economy going again. And I also know that such a fix will create so much national debt that many generations of Americans will have to work very hard to repay it.

Do I like this idea? Heck No! But this conservative-minded ex-banker sees no other way that will work to get our economy growing again anytime soon. When I say "anytime soon", I mean that even with massive government intervention the economy is not likely to recover before sometime in 2010. Without gobs of government money -- your money and mine -- recovery to economic activity as we have known it in recent years might take a decade or more. That means a real change in lifestyle for all of us. And anyone who knows the definitions would describe such government intervention as "nationalizing" or "socializing" important parts of our economy. That's what it is, like it or not.

I might add that whatever contrary opinions that are held by posters here, the economists, bankers, and financial experts of both conservative and liberal leanings seem to agree that the old ways of reacting to a recession cannot work this time. The financial crisis is simply too overwhelming.

So, we really don't have differences of opinion as "conservatives" or "liberals" or even "socialists". We all should have learned by now that "Republican" doesn't mean "conservative" any more than "Democrat" means "liberal" or "socialist". Our only difference of opinion is how bad the economic problem is that we're facing and what alternatives are available to fix it. Once we begin citing one fix or another, it's only then that people start assigning idealogical tags to the alternatives -- and those that propose them.

First of all I dont believe for one minute VK that you are a conservative, but you can say whatever you want and I am forced to accept your words.

Second, as I said many times...I am no economic guru as you purport to be, but explain to me how GIVING MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars away is doing one thing for us.

First I read how Barney Frank helped a black bank in MA get money...why...because they were black...he made sure they shared in the funds and was and is pusing for more TARP for these folks. I might add they are infamous for the high salaries.

Second, I hear one of the President's gurus say he cannot assure EVEN ONE JOB WOULD BE CREATED BY GIVING OUT MONEY.

What is the point ?

Banks are no different than any other business. Some succeed. Some fail. Some make a profit. Some Ponzi themselves into ruin. Some are very well managed. Some bank managers shouldn't be allowed to run a lemonade stand.

Gobs of money in the hands of managers proven to be inept or greedy is wasted money.

Successful economies require money to remain in the society and cycle several times. Removing money from the "cycle" via foreign purchases results in no economy.

Sure, there are billions in bad loans out there - and those holding the bad paper have lost their investment. Period.

Let's be very blunt. There are no people in government service who have graduated with economics degrees from Hogwarts, and no magic potions on their desks and no magic wands stuck in the belts. In other words, there are no people in government service who have the expertise to fix what the greed of others have broken. Mega-BIllions dispensed by well-meaning amateurs is scarier yet, as the potential for exploitation is immense.

So, in the end, the marketplace has to fix itself because there are no magicians in government to put Humpty Dumpty back together. That means some banks will go belly-up and be gobbled up by the remaining healthy sharks.

These lousy bankers who screwed up are no different than the thousands who go to Las Vegas, Biloxi, Atlantic City and similar spots, blow it all on a bad spin or "lousy cards" and end up broke. Shall we recoup their losses as well? Gambling is gambling, whether it is called "investing" or other sanitized term. Businesses succeed and fail, as all businesses operate on levels of assumed risks. Banks are no different.

The marketplace will correct the banking system. Government bailout only means that banker executives will be paid per their contracts, bonuses despite bad business decisions will be paid, and the folks at the top of the banking pyramid - the ones who direct the payment of campaign funds and hire K Street lobbyists to protect their interests - can breathe easier and still order their new Mercedes SLR McLaren.

Impatience breeds mistakes, especially when it comes to dispensing money with little information. Worse, impatience makes a select few richer at the expense of the frightened.

Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit (Ferengi Rule of Acquisition # 161) I wonder who those folk are in this mess?

....and the democratic buffoons who attacked Bush from day one get a pass from you....is it only Conservative Republicans that have bad attitudes?

What do you think of your Democratic cronies, Pelosi, Reid, et al who are pushing to crush Conservative dissent with that little Stalinist gem called the "fairness doctrine" that would virtually take conservative talk radio off the air? Its coming....sooner then later. The partisan tone of your post suggests you would support it.

How does that serve the people?

I love the libs....freedom of speech for them...but, crush distasteful and stupid foolishness...if its coming from the right.


I have respectfully read most of your posts over a long period of time. While I don't agree with much of your political tilt to the left, I have occasionally enjoyed exchanging missiles.

You said, "I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country."

That "by inference our country" remark you made, is nothing short of cheap, inflammatory fighting words. I know many posters who have served this country when others were heading for Canada. Don't preach to me or them about who supports our country and who doesn't. Your thoughtless provocative linkage from Limbaugh's opinion saying those that support Limbaugh somehow do not support our country is the worst attack I have seen on this board. Yes, I do take it personally.

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.'s column
 

Rush Limbaugh's a disloyal clown when he says he hopes Obama fails

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...na25pitts.html

This article referenced above was written by Leonard Pitts......the link below is an article he wrote this week on President Bush.....oh, this is the last sentence of that article...

"Godspeed, then, Mr. Bush. Good health and long life. I hope you live to hear history itself tell you what an awful president you were."

http://www.freep.com/article/2009011...ON03/901170303

Not much bias huh ?

As Stephen Colbert said: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

VK,

I am quite certain you don't need my or anyone elses help, but the stuff being thrown your way, both overt and wrapped in a cloak of semantics, sarcasm and demegoguery is frankly becoming distasteful. While I may not agree with everything you say you do consistently bring well articulated and well informed opinions into the forum, and have done so without resorting to insults or personal attacks. Kudos to you for having the courage and intelligence to bring meaningful discussion to the table,and I for one like the fact that you (and others) have profoundly challenged some of my thought processes. Thanks for your efforts.:coolsmiley:

Some say they don't do personal attacks and then do. There are some people that have been unhappy people every since I have been in this forum. They live to stir the pot. VK - I agree with you and think your posts are usually well thought out and meant to provide discussion instead of all this nonsense.

Kayaker, go read what Rush actually said, not what some media pundit said he said and his interpretation of it. He did not say he hopes Obama fails. He said he hopes his socialist policies fail. I hope they do also. I want Obama to succeed, but not his leftest ideas. Big difference.

And this is all I have to say on the matter. You can agree to disagree, but the rest of this is drivel.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...NmZmM2MzYxMmI=

Thanks for a great link Tall !!!

I was glad to see the mention of Sal Alinsky in the link....I have been preaching all through the primary and the election how President Obama is following to the letter his teachings.

Just as an aside, someone was on here talking about his 80% approval ratings...now at 68

Rush is right...again.

Rush
 

Rush=Buffoon

Your comment = ignorance.

My point exactly.
 

Republican from Ohio, John Boehner made my point exactly on Meet the Press this morning. He said emphatically that he does NOT want President Obama to fail because he does NOT want America to fail.

He may disagree with him on parts of the Stimulus Package, but he stated a couple of times that he does, indeed, want President Obama to succeed in every way.

That was my point.

Rush Limbaugh is not even worth air time. Just my opinion. He's become a joke and a bad one at that. :yuck:

You were not listening. Boehner made exactly Rush's point in that he does not want Obama to fail ergo America to fail. However, Boehner wants Obama's POLICIES (the road we're headed down) to fail. Boehner was not as articulate as Rush, but the intent is there.

Write Boehner a letter and see if he doesn't confirm what I have said. And remember, Boehner will have to spray the flower because he IS afterall a politician as well.

Thanks for the clarification, TallerTree. I didn't see the show, but couldn't imagine that Boehner, of all people, would be for socialism.

Ok...May the clock at Lake Sumter Landing ring out.....I am going to "SORT OF" agree with Chelsea on this. Here is the direct transcript from the show...

Keep in mind that they are SPECIFICALLY talking about the current discussion of bail outs...

BOEHNER: "Listen, we, we’ve made it clear we want to work with the new president. He’s made clear he wants to work with us. That’s why we laid out our ideas at his invitation the other day. And we want to continue to work with him to help fix this economy.

David, this isn’t about Democrat or Republican at this point. We have some serious problems in our economy. And believe me, all of us want the president to succeed. We want this plan to work. Now, there’s no real daylight between the president and Republicans on the Hill. There may be some disagreement over how much spending or how much in the way of tax relief.

But, at the end of the day, we want him to succeed because America needs him to succeed."

He DID say it....in speaking of this subject. I do not believe that Limbaugh was talking about such a narrow subject area in his comments. He was speaking of the general socialist programs.

Secondly...yes I "SORT OF" agree with Chelsea as I am NOT a fan of Limbaugh..dont listen to him but he is in the same catagory as Maher, Maddow and Olberman on the left. They have an agenda and they push it to the extreme. On this particular thread I think that VK stretched his allegiance to the new President just a bit. I am certainly opposed to the socialist agenda we are going to embark on for the next few years, and opposed President Obama's election for that reason, but not going to and did not during the campaign start a thread based on ANY of the aformentioned folks and what they say !

Ok..."sort of" is the best you get.....you stretched the facts a tad with context and the "every way" comment which HE NEVER SAID, and had to go after Limbaugh personally, but in general I will agree!

First: Bucco: Show me one time that Rush Limbaugh was wrong about anything liberal. Rush is not a Republican shill. Thankfully, he thinks for himself and is one of the most well versed, intelligent men out there. He is not a dolt.

Secondly: DK asked a question on page as follows:

What specific things does Obama support that you support and hope he succeeds at changing or implementing?

Give us specific policies and regulations, don't just say "change" or "fixing the economy." Maybe include why or how you believe it will make the county better.

And, I have noted that NOT ONE of you has had the courage to answer at all. And keep in mind, I believe DK is looking for a real well reasoned answer and not the garbage spewing that has been coming his way.