that there are two way streets.

The one way street that is pounded most often...if you are not for my guy you must for the opposition, therefore where is your head at?

To each his own but it does wear thin....

It makes their lives simpler as Nancy Pelosi professes...if it is from or for the opposition I am against it....doesn't get much shallower than that....our third in line for the POTUS (GOD please keep Obama and Biden safe).

BTK

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Hey, where's the respect for the President you all so demanded for Bush???

If Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail, he wants America to fail. Is that what you all want too???

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone with any intelligence would listen to that man. Rush Limbaugh is one step away from a skinhead. He's a sick, sorry individual that feels he must yell and rant to get his point (when he has one) across.

Fortunately, Limbaugh will be proven wrong -- yet again.

I absolutely demand that you post the exact quote where ANYONE in this country...ANYONE, Limbaugh included...said they wanted "America to fail".....or to even imply it, but simply say that the SOCIALIST programs that would lead us to socialism should fail because he did not want socialism in this country.

Why can you not listen except to what you want to hear ????

I would expect that someone who is always bringing up her journalism degree would be loath to misquote someone...so as a journalist, please correct your error, as NOBODY ever said what are repeating in this forum.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Posters in this forum come from a wide range of political beliefs. That's good. That's democracy. That's the system that the founding fathers so brilliantly created more than 200 years ago.

But can anyone support that statement that Rush Limbaugh made on his radio show recently? I heard it reported that he said that his feelings for the new administration can be summed up in four words: "I hope Obama fails."

I found the report so unbelievable that I Googled the topic and was lead to Limbaugh's web site where his statement is pesented in context and in it's entirety. Here's the link...http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...113.guest.html

It's one thing to hold strong political beliefs and positions. But we do all live in and support democracy. It seems to me that at some point in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins. After all, it is our country and the democratic process applies to and benefits all of us, regardless of political stripe.

How can a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh make statements like this and even call himself an American? It's attitudes like this that have so fractured our political system that it has frozen and has totally failed to serve the people. Hopefully most people will react to statement's like this in the same way that Limbaugh's own staff did when he said the words on the radio -- they laughed. But hopefully people will also react with disgust with Limbaugh's distasteful and stupid foolishness.

If you listened or read the very link you provided, then you would be aware how out of context you have placed this.

I heard this on the media while they were nagging about it and thus investigated it since I dont listen to any of the right or left wing zealots. And you know what was said and in what context.

I suppose after all the out of context crap we have heard the last few years it will now continue as it did during the primary and general election.

I am NOT defending Rush Limbaugh...he can do that for himself....I am irate that this kind of out of context criticism from supposedly intelligent people is going to be used to protect this President as it was used to elect him.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Posters in this forum come from a wide range of political beliefs. That's good. That's democracy. That's the system that the founding fathers so brilliantly created more than 200 years ago.

But can anyone support that statement that Rush Limbaugh made on his radio show recently? I heard it reported that he said that his feelings for the new administration can be summed up in four words: "I hope Obama fails."

I found the report so unbelievable that I Googled the topic and was lead to Limbaugh's web site where his statement is pesented in context and in it's entirety. Here's the link...http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...113.guest.html

It's one thing to hold strong political beliefs and positions. But we do all live in and support democracy. It seems to me that at some point in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins. After all, it is our country and the democratic process applies to and benefits all of us, regardless of political stripe.

How can a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh make statements like this and even call himself an American? It's attitudes like this that have so fractured our political system that it has frozen and has totally failed to serve the people. Hopefully most people will react to statement's like this in the same way that Limbaugh's own staff did when he said the words on the radio -- they laughed. But hopefully people will also react with disgust with Limbaugh's distasteful and stupid foolishness.

I am so irate at this thread that I must further comment.

Since you quickly jump on here and start a thread about a person who, by his own admission is very hard right, and are totally 100% silent and mute on the comments from the far left, one can only make the assumption that you condone those or you surely would have started a thread condemning them because

"in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins."

OR, is it that it is not acceptable UNLESS you agree ?

Listen, Limbaugh is an idiot from all I have read, but had folks been on here quoting the Air America crowd or Michael Moore, you would have dismissed them out of hand.

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

You mean like the respect Obama gave Bush at his inaugural address. The booing, while not Obama's fault, was real classy, also.

Sally, I actually felt sorry for Bush when he was booed, but that had nothing to do with President Obama and everything to do with George W. Bush's failed policies and lack of understanding of the American people.

Originally Posted by Bucco

I absolutely demand that you post the exact quote where ANYONE in this country...ANYONE, Limbaugh included...said they wanted "America to fail".....or to even imply it, but simply say that the SOCIALIST programs that would lead us to socialism should fail because he did not want socialism in this country.

Why can you not listen except to what you want to hear ????

I would expect that someone who is always bringing up her journalism degree would be loath to misquote someone...so as a journalist, please correct your error, as NOBODY ever said what are repeating in this forum.

Bucco, let's get a few things straight. First, you're the one that keeps bringing up my journalism degree -- not me. A Journalism Degree does not a journalist make. i.e. Sarah Palin. (Bad example -- at least I read!)

Second, you can demand something of me until the cows come home . . . it ain't gonna happen! This was not a direct quote, hence the absence of quote marks.

Third, it is my opinion, that if a person wants our President to fail or even his policies to fail, it is then the same as them wanting America to fail. It's all the same. Bush policies failed. Get it??? Our former President failed. And look at the mess he left behind.

And Fourth, your CAPITAL LETTERS don't scare me, so calm down!

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Bucco, let's get a few things straight. First, you're the one that keeps bringing up my journalism degree -- not me. A Journalism Degree does not a journalist make. i.e. Sarah Palin. (Bad example -- at least I read!)

Second, you can demand something of me until the cows come home . . . it ain't gonna happen! This was not a direct quote, hence the absence of quote marks.

Third, it is my opinion, that if a person wants our President to fail or even his policies to fail, it is then the same as them wanting America to fail. It's all the same. Bush policies failed. Get it??? Our former President failed. And look at the mess he left behind.

And Fourth, your CAPITAL LETTERS don't scare me, so calm down!

Thanks for at least admitting you put words in the mans mouth he never uttered !!!!

*

I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country. I'm disappointed as well. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if John McCain had won the election and some left-wing nutcase expressed the same wish for him, I would be equally outraged.

It's exactly this type of venomous partisanship that has kept our government frozen for the last four Presidential administrations. Rather than using his platform to implore the inclusion of conservative objectives in legislation being created, or encourage conservative legislators to introduce new legislation which he feels important, instead he makes a disgusting personal attack on the new leader of our country. What's even more offensive is that he's taking this position even though the President seems to be making every effort to make his relationships with Congress inclusive of the desires of both parties.

The Republicans are not going to get everything they want in the legislation of the next couple of Congresses. They had a chance when they were in the majority for more than half of the last four Presidential administrations and did not make sufficient progress to satisfy the electorate. Different candidates were elected which shifted the majority to the Democrats. That's the way it was and that's the way it is. The real legislative leaders are those that can negotiate for what they feel is important legislation, even when in the minority.

Rush Limbaugh has elected not to use his position to stimulate the achievement of conservative objectives in the legislative process. Instead he mounted a venomous and outrageous personal attack.

I refuse to look backward, as some posters here seem wont to do. It does little good. If the members of one party or the other frustrated or even stopped the legislative process for personal or idealogical reasons, a pox on all their houses. I refuse to look backward in search of a justification for similar conduct in the future. Our county cannot afford more of the same. Besides a backward look might not provide a particularly satisfying picture of the party and idealogical principles which Limbaugh says he supports.

But why should I be surprised? Limbaugh himself says he's no longer a Republican. He seems to have established his own party, one based on the most extreme far-right ideaology and one which is totally unwilling to participate in the democratic process. For Rush, it seems to be I only want it my way and no variance from my personal beliefs will be acceptable. If I can't win then I'll torch the whole government and the political process.

Those of you who endorse Limbaugh, God bless you. The next four years -- maybe eight -- will be long and frustrating. I will not characterize Limbaugh's statement as anything other than disgusting and anti-democracy. I will support our new President until such time as he performs in a way to lose my support, just as George Bush did after I voted for him for his first term but the second.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

Bill-O's clown act must be working... he has the highest rated news talk show on cable TV.

No doubt, every parent in America wants their daughter to work for "Billo". Who else could work for a major corporation and sexually harass a female employee to the tune of over $10 million and keep his job!

Having worked for a mojor corporation and seeing behavior not even approaching anything "Billo" did, result in termination, it says volume about "FAUX" news and the lemmings who continually listen to this sexist pig!

The political discourse in DC is getting a little less civil all of the time. When President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Court the confirmation vote was 96-3. She was at one time the chief counsel to the ACLU. The GOP Senators felt the President got to get his choice approved. When it came to President Bush's choice of Samual Alieto the vote was 58-42. Over the years the Dems in the Senate had a larger political agenda. It was to damage the Bush Administration at all cost. I suspect the GOP won't forget that soon. All the worse for us all.
Oh, and read what Rush actually said.

I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country
__________________________________________________ ___-

VK...please post the names of those on here who did what you say above ????

Thanks

Those of you who endorse Limbaugh, God bless you.
______________________________________________-

VK...please post the names of those who do what you say above ??

And the Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher and the after-midnight crowd are any better or different than Limbaugh? They are all entertainers, paid by revenue from advertising sponsors and at the mercy of ratings.

They do mirror segments of the populace, and they do bring out strong feelings - pro and con.

Now let's take one of the more flamboyant positions, that being an Obama failure. It's safe to say that we all want him to be a successful president, but that success is measured by different criteria, depending on one's political leanings.

As a progressive neanderthal, my criteria for a successful Obama presidency would be:

1. End of the Iraq War, with an Iraqi government in place that actually believes in human rights for Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Christian, Jew, Druid and whomever/whatever else lives in that geography. Anything less is failure.

2. End of the Afghani War - with the same points as above.

3. Elimination of al-Qa'ida and its subordinate and satellite entities from this planet, in that they no longer present a threat to the Western world. Anything less is failure.

4. Reduction in government spending, especially in social programs geared to increase the dependency of targeted groups toward government aid for long-term existence. If that means some of the Obama administration's pet programs don't become law, that's a success.

That's just a few of what I consider a successful Obama presidency. So, "failure" is a subjective term.

Let's remember that "all Americans" didn't vote for Mr. Obama. Many voted for him not because of his position on issues, but because they just either wanted somebody who didn't seem like a continuum of the previous administration, or because he is of like ethnic background, or because he was the media darling.

He does have a political honeymoon ahead, still owes many political debts, and has the luxury (as all new administrations do) of saying that things are worse than he thought, so the "rules change" is the first of the "changes" to occur.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Rhodes, Maher, and all the others - even as entertaining commentators - provide a lot of good, and have done so - pro and con - very well. We would all be much less informed, and probably less interested in many issues had it not been for these left-and-right-leaning commentators. They make us think! They force us to investigate! They have the luxury of devoting a lot of time into watching and listening, and give us information we would not have received from the broadcast media - also dependent on dog food commercial revenue for their survival.

So, if the administration can't take criticism from these commentators, and if public criticism is to be silenced as "fairness," the term describing that policy is Faschism.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

And the Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher and the after-midnight crowd are any better or different than Limbaugh? They are all entertainers, paid by revenue from advertising sponsors and at the mercy of ratings.

They do mirror segments of the populace, and they do bring out strong feelings - pro and con.

Now let's take one of the more flamboyant positions, that being an Obama failure. It's safe to say that we all want him to be a successful president, but that success is measured by different criteria, depending on one's political leanings.

As a progressive neanderthal, my criteria for a successful Obama presidency would be:

1. End of the Iraq War, with an Iraqi government in place that actually believes in human rights for Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Christian, Jew, Druid and whomever/whatever else lives in that geography. Anything less is failure.

2. End of the Afghani War - with the same points as above.

3. Elimination of al-Qa'ida and its subordinate and satellite entities from this planet, in that they no longer present a threat to the Western world. Anything less is failure.

4. Reduction in government spending, especially in social programs geared to increase the dependency of targeted groups toward government aid for long-term existence. If that means some of the Obama administration's pet programs don't become law, that's a success.

That's just a few of what I consider a successful Obama presidency. So, "failure" is a subjective term.

Let's remember that "all Americans" didn't vote for Mr. Obama. Many voted for him not because of his position on issues, but because they just either wanted somebody who didn't seem like a continuum of the previous administration, or because he is of like ethnic background, or because he was the media darling.

He does have a political honeymoon ahead, still owes many political debts, and has the luxury (as all new administrations do) of saying that things are worse than he thought, so the "rules change" is the first of the "changes" to occur.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Rhodes, Maher, and all the others - even as entertaining commentators - provide a lot of good, and have done so - pro and con - very well. We would all be much less informed, and probably less interested in many issues had it not been for these left-and-right-leaning commentators. They make us think! They force us to investigate! They have the luxury of devoting a lot of time into watching and listening, and give us information we would not have received from the broadcast media - also dependent on dog food commercial revenue for their survival.

So, if the administration can't take criticism from these commentators, and if public criticism is to be silenced as "fairness," the term describing that policy is Faschism.

Well said Steve...entertainers is it and if we taking Liimbaugh to the wood shed, let us take them ALL there.

This quote from you post is the one that is scaring me terribly...

"So, if the administration can't take criticism from these commentators, and if public criticism is to be silenced as "fairness," the term describing that policy is Faschism."

I am so tired of anytime I disagree with the President or his colleagues being either called a racist or having it implied...being told that I must be rich, etc and now we are taking quotes from the far end and shoving it up our noses...this along with the attempt to silence ANY comment but allowing those you mention ON BOTH SIDES and add to that the Michael Moore's etc.

Why VK does not include those in his tirade is beyond me !