Who Wants Obama to Fail?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

You answered a completely different question. Mine is why would someone WANT him to fail given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through. Someone please answer this question.

I’ll answer your question with a question.

Why would someone WANT him to succeed given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through?[/quote]

Gah! Now you’re just giving me semantics. If the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy and that plan then fails, that means that the goal is not achieved.

I don’t see how you can see the current plan failing as synonymous with economic prosperity.

82

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
FutureGL wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

  1. This thread moves way too quickly, you snooze for half a day and end up with three pages to read.

  2. This might be moot, but nobody seems to care to address it: Hoping that the current president will fail in a time like this implies that you have the economic endurance (money) to survive a MAJOR dive for the next 4-8 years. Those of us with smaller slow twitch monetary fibers can’t afford that.

Metaphorically speaking, as a college student I can’t exactly run a great 5k when my pre-meet nutrition just went from Surge to a handful of deli meat and Wonderbread. I’d like the next couple years to go well, actually.

Would this failure be worth it just to make a point?

The failure is not going to happen “to make a point”. It’s going to fail because the model is flawed. Obama’s running an experiment that has been tried many times before and each and every time it has failed.

Sooner or later even the most seemingly visionary theory must be discarded when it can never pass muster. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Push,

I’d like to field that question. It’s so hard to grasp because most people HAVE NO IDEA that these ideas have failed before.

They hear FDR and they see his statues. They hear “New Deal” in their liberal classrooms and they think “savior.”

They have no idea that his own sec of Treasury called it a failure in 1939.

It’s so hard to grasp because people are lazy or intentionally ignorant.

Try an experiment on random obama voters. Ask them direct questions.

I’ll bet you lixy’s propaganda money that the answers will depress you.

Ok you know what Jeff, you need to answer my question too. Don’t label me a Obama supporter based on my previous post.

I’m questioning this entire thread because it’s entitled “Who Wants Obama to Fail.” You can’t read that and intelligibly rule out his current effort to rescue the economy. Thus hoping Obama fails = hoping the economy continues in its downward spiral. This would hurt a lot of people, myself included.

Tell me hoping an economic stimulus plan fails isn’t un-American. Go ahead.

First of all, let’s get right to it: Did you vote for barack obama circa November, 2008?

Second, wanting America to succeed is American.

Third, no thanks on socialism.

Fourth, Push is right, this wasn’t a stimulus plan.

JeffR

[/quote]

First: No I didn’t

Second: It sure is. So is hoping that a plan intended to help the economy succeeds.

Third: Me neither

Fourth: Call it what you will.

83

[quote]anonym wrote:
So you don’t feel that it was an oversight for the Constitution to not tackle the issue of slavery? It’s still very consistent with the Declaration and that whole, “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” thing?
[/quote]
You do understand that they actually needed the state to ratify it, don’t you? What do think the chances would have been of southern states signing a document that “tackled” the issue of slavery?

Nope. You obviously haven’t done much reading on the subject. This is not the passage that one should be concered with. This was merely done to limit representation of the south. Take out the 3/5s clause and pro-slavery ideals would have had far more representation in the house.

The passage you are looking for stipulates that slave owners can use the federal courts to recover fugative slaves. In practice this was not effetive, as slaves didn’t cary photo ID at the time. not many where recoverd once they made it north. Hence the fugative slave act.

maybe. it didn’t specify blacks. Just slaves. Actually not even slaves. I would have to look up the passage. It was something like “those having obligations to another” or something like that. Again, I would have to look it up.

maybe. but history would have been completely different if this would have happened. Probalby would have ended worse for slaves.

No ratification by southern states = no federal bases or munitions in the south = no conferderate raiding of said bases and munitions = no civil war.

[quote]

I understand your whole “slippery slope” argument here…I’m just having trouble wrapping my head around this particular topic.[/quote]

My suggestion would be to read the constitution. Then start with “the politically incorrect guide to the constitution” This book is ok, but it does provide a slew of good referense material.

84

[quote]FutureGL wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

You answered a completely different question. Mine is why would someone WANT him to fail given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through. Someone please answer this question.

I’ll answer your question with a question.

Why would someone WANT him to succeed given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through?

Gah! Now you’re just giving me semantics. If the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy and that plan then fails, that means that the goal is not achieved.

I don’t see how you can see the current plan failing as synonymous with economic prosperity.[/quote]

Well, if you believe that the plan itself will do HARM to the economy above and beyond whats going on already then wanting the plan to fail is synonymous with economic prosperity, relatively speaking.

One could look at it this way–if the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy, and that plan is so ill thought out that it runs us into deeper debt without doing anything of permanent economic value, and without shortening the corrective phase of a bust, and in fact very arguably LENGTHENING that corrective phase, then that plan is harmful to the economy for which it was proposed. Thus, wanting it to fail in being implemented is very wise.

Furthermore, this goes beyond just the rescue plan. Many people on this board see Obama’s economic policies as demonstrably bad for a country in a recession, and therefore wanting him to fail in implementing those policies is also a very wise decision.

The market would seem to bear this out, as it keeps making remarkable drops every time he opens his mouth to talk about what he wants to do economically. In any case, there was a WSJ article posted recently that basically argues that the country is not going to get better with Obama doing what he’s doing.

Given that the market listens to the WSJ above most other newspapers, this is a good news source to be watching for indications of how the market sees policy decisions or proposals.

85

[quote]anonym wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Yes. You understand that A (the Constitution is flawed) leads to B (It’s flawed, let’s mess around with other areas) to C (gun control etc.)

Or, if the Founders where “wrong” about this, what else did they mess up?

Once you don’t believe in the underlying moral authority of the document, you may not feel constrained to follow it’s dictates.

JeffR

So you don’t feel that it was an oversight for the Constitution to not tackle the issue of slavery? It’s still very consistent with the Declaration and that whole, “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” thing?

That whole “3/5 Compromise” thing ain’t nuthin’ to voice a concern over?

You can’t see a black man looking back on that and thinking, Shucks, I’d have done things a wee-bit differently?

Anyone who thinks the Constitution should have addressed slavery with the interests of blacks in mind is secretly just itching to use the document as toilet paper?

I understand your whole “slippery slope” argument here…I’m just having trouble wrapping my head around this particular topic.[/quote]

Knowing why it was in there, may help you out a bit…I ain’t gona tell you…Learn.

86

[quote]dhickey wrote:
anonym wrote:
So you don’t feel that it was an oversight for the Constitution to not tackle the issue of slavery? It’s still very consistent with the Declaration and that whole, “Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” thing?

You do understand that they actually needed the state to ratify it, don’t you? What do think the chances would have been of southern states signing a document that “tackled” the issue of slavery?

That whole “3/5 Compromise” thing ain’t nuthin’ to voice a concern over?

Nope. You obviously haven’t done much reading on the subject. This is not the passage that one should be concered with. This was merely done to limit representation of the south. Take out the 3/5s clause and pro-slavery ideals would have had far more representation in the house.

The passage you are looking for stipulates that slave owners can use the federal courts to recover fugative slaves. In practice this was not effetive, as slaves didn’t cary photo ID at the time. not many where recoverd once they made it north. Hence the fugative slave act.

You can’t see a black man looking back on that and thinking, Shucks, I’d have done things a wee-bit differently?

maybe. it didn’t specify blacks. Just slaves. Actually not even slaves. I would have to look up the passage. It was something like “those having obligations to another” or something like that. Again, I would have to look it up.

Anyone who thinks the Constitution should have addressed slavery with the interests of blacks in mind is secretly just itching to use the document as toilet paper?

maybe. but history would have been completely different if this would have happened. Probalby would have ended worse for slaves.

No ratification by southern states = no federal bases or munitions in the south = no conferderate raiding of said bases and munitions = no civil war.

I understand your whole “slippery slope” argument here…I’m just having trouble wrapping my head around this particular topic.

My suggestion would be to read the constitution. Then start with “the politically incorrect guide to the constitution” This book is ok, but it does provide a slew of good referense material.

[/quote]

Bottom line, southern states would not have ratified the constitution and there would be no country, period. That’s why it was there, right, wrong or indifferent.

87

Obama said:

[quote]"I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture - the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not - first of all, they weren’t African-Americans.

The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers and that they didn’t see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth…I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot.

I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."
[/quote]

Ya know what? I largely agree with him here EXCEPT:

Slavery and racism did not and do not DEFINE this country. It was a festering tumorous abhorrent flaw that stood in stark hypocritical contrast to the principles that DID define this country. The 800 pound gorilla in the room.

[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,[/quote]

Unless you’re black.

They set for us a near impossible situation with race relations to satisfactorily and justly overcome. That said, the steps we have taken allegedly to this end could almost not possibly have been worse. They have and are accomplishing the diametric opposite.

The correct course, while unavoidably being the best among lousy options would have been to make the principles that DID define this nation open to all men, who I do I believe are in fact created equal.

That would have also been problematic to say the least, but these now many years hence we would have been light years further toward social justice and equality of opportunity than we are having tried to force it to happen artificially.

Obama’s socialist invasion in the guise of economic recovery will, as always, impact minorities and the least advantaged among us the the worst.

I once again unabashedly state. I hope he fails. His success is the countries failure, and in particular as always with these big government snobs the weaklings who are groping for his help will take the worst of it. Mark my words.

Too bad he doesn’t take either of the above quotes to heart.

88

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
FutureGL wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

You answered a completely different question. Mine is why would someone WANT him to fail given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through. Someone please answer this question.

I’ll answer your question with a question.

Why would someone WANT him to succeed given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through?

Gah! Now you’re just giving me semantics. If the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy and that plan then fails, that means that the goal is not achieved.

I don’t see how you can see the current plan failing as synonymous with economic prosperity.

Well, if you believe that the plan itself will do HARM to the economy above and beyond whats going on already then wanting the plan to fail is synonymous with economic prosperity, relatively speaking.

One could look at it this way–if the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy, and that plan is so ill thought out that it runs us into deeper debt without doing anything of permanent economic value,

And without shortening the corrective phase of a bust, and in fact very arguably LENGTHENING that corrective phase, then that plan is harmful to the economy for which it was proposed. Thus, wanting it to fail in being implemented is very wise.

Furthermore, this goes beyond just the rescue plan. Many people on this board see Obama’s economic policies as demonstrably bad for a country in a recession, and therefore wanting him to fail in implementing those policies is also a very wise decision.

The market would seem to bear this out, as it keeps making remarkable drops every time he opens his mouth to talk about what he wants to do economically. In any case, there was a WSJ article posted recently that basically argues that the country is not going to get better with Obama doing what he’s doing.

Given that the market listens to the WSJ above most other newspapers, this is a good news source to be watching for indications of how the market sees policy decisions or proposals.[/quote]

THANK YOU. See, that’s an acceptable answer. The Politics board has a lot of problems. We might actually get some valuable discussion in if people answered each other’s questions more often.

90

First off, I’ll admit that I haven’t read the entire post, so if this intensely relevant political discussion has somehow gravitated to boobies I apologize for my interjection.

In response to this topic presented by Tiribulus, I have to say I’m surprised by the unmitigated hope of disaster. You admitedly identify yourself as a “traditional conservative”, which to me simply means you get a hard on while listening to Ann Coulter. Seriously though, your without the whole corporate side of neoconservatism?

OK.

Not to sound like a lecturing Doucher bro, but it seems that no one understands that Politics works through the system of balance. Republican idealogy is a goal to which we can all aspire.

Imagine, a world with almost no taxes, a strong and stable economy, and a governement where the president can get bj’s in the oval office. Oh, yes, i believe it will happen again. At the same time however, our government must be designed and integrated within a healthy social structure so that our country can stay that way. That is the goal of Obama.

If you assume that he represents the typical aspects of a dem (and i do), his job is to design plans that will make our government and social structures more harmonious and ultimately balance the effects of the republican party.

Like two sides of a coin, yin and yang, or the patriarchal matriarchal societies, the dem’s and the republicans work as part of a greater system. Ironically enough, hoping for his failure will insure the destruction of your party and ideals.

Honestly dude, hoping for failure is just counterproductice. Grow a sack, cling to your Coulter blanket, and hope for the best.

91

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
anonym wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
I’d appreciate it if you read what I write before replying.

Thanks,

JeffR

Ditto in regards to my very first post. I understood the implications of what you are saying off the bat, but I was simply wondering if you knew what, specifically, he was referring to when he made that quote.

Because, at the time, it seemed silly to me that one could know what he was speaking of and somehow feel that he is 100% mistaken in that regard.

He’s 100% mistaken in that he acts as though the document is flawed in other areas.

If you read my response, I knew the context as well.

JeffR
[/quote]

One could believe the Constitution is flawed; and yet believe oneself obligated to either uphold it or resign one’s office, because of the oath one took upon accepting that office. Of course, that might require an old-fashioned understanding of the significance of an oath.

Several years ago, an acquaintance and I were discussing judicial rulings. I said something to the effect that judges should make rulings that are consistent with the Constitution and the law: even when rulings that are not consistent with the Constitution and the law would be better (absent the obligation to apply the Constitution and the law). (To be fair, I forget the exact wording I used, and what the specific example or category of cases was.)

My acquaintance said my position on the matter was “lame”. This person was not a child nor an adolescent nor an alien; he was a middle-aged adult American citizen.

Anyway, I think an office-holder’s perception of flaws in the Constitution is of greater or lesser concern, depending on the office-holder’s understanding of what his obligations are upon taking an oath to uphold the Constitution.

93

I think Obama is the most vile faggot I’ve ever seen and I think he’ll beat out FDR for the position of second worst president in history. This is the current list:

  1. Wilson
  2. FDR
  3. Bush

Obama will beat him out for spot #2.

94

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
FutureGL wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

You answered a completely different question. Mine is why would someone WANT him to fail given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through. Someone please answer this question.

I’ll answer your question with a question.

Why would someone WANT him to succeed given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through?

Gah! Now you’re just giving me semantics. If the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy and that plan then fails, that means that the goal is not achieved.

I don’t see how you can see the current plan failing as synonymous with economic prosperity.

Well, if you believe that the plan itself will do HARM to the economy above and beyond whats going on already then wanting the plan to fail is synonymous with economic prosperity, relatively speaking.

One could look at it this way–if the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy, and that plan is so ill thought out that it runs us into deeper debt without doing anything of permanent economic value,

And without shortening the corrective phase of a bust, and in fact very arguably LENGTHENING that corrective phase, then that plan is harmful to the economy for which it was proposed. Thus, wanting it to fail in being implemented is very wise.

Furthermore, this goes beyond just the rescue plan. Many people on this board see Obama’s economic policies as demonstrably bad for a country in a recession, and therefore wanting him to fail in implementing those policies is also a very wise decision.

The market would seem to bear this out, as it keeps making remarkable drops every time he opens his mouth to talk about what he wants to do economically. In any case, there was a WSJ article posted recently that basically argues that the country is not going to get better with Obama doing what he’s doing.

Given that the market listens to the WSJ above most other newspapers, this is a good news source to be watching for indications of how the market sees policy decisions or proposals.

THANK YOU. See, that’s an acceptable answer. The Politics board has a lot of problems. We might actually get some valuable discussion in if people answered each other’s questions more often.

No, the politics board does not have a lot of problems. It may have a lot of opinions and some of them may differ with yours but a differing opinion does not create an inherent problem.

If Tirib had given you what you deemed an un’acceptable answer’ would that be a “problem”? If so, that would indicate a requisite solution. Are you a solution donor?

Are you such an intellectual lighthouse that you could save many ships on an errant course and keep them off the rocks of misguided notions? Are you that good? That smart? That savvy?[/quote]

Ya know push, for a guy I respect so much on the other forums, you’re kind of being a jerk.

I didn’t read Tirib’s post until you brought it up – didn’t see it was intended for me because he didn’t quote my last post. His answer is also terrific because it answers my question.

I disagree with both Tirib and Aragorn, but I can’t ignore that they were the only two posters to actually address my question. You went ad hominem instead. Thanks bud.

And yes I am that savvy.

95

Obama’s ideas will fail. I don’t think most people want them to but that is the reality of socialism, deficit spending, and inflation.

As they do fail we need economically savvy people standing at the ready to point the finger and say, “I told you so!”

Every person on this board with a shred of economic understanding (not 100m) should be writing letters to their representatives telling them not to support his garbage.

November, 2010 cannot come fast enough!

97

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
FutureGL wrote:
pushharder wrote:
FutureGL wrote:

You answered a completely different question. Mine is why would someone WANT him to fail given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through. Someone please answer this question.

I’ll answer your question with a question.

Why would someone WANT him to succeed given the economic suffering it would put so many Americans through?

Gah! Now you’re just giving me semantics. If the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy and that plan then fails, that means that the goal is not achieved.

I don’t see how you can see the current plan failing as synonymous with economic prosperity.

Well, if you believe that the plan itself will do HARM to the economy above and beyond whats going on already then wanting the plan to fail is synonymous with economic prosperity, relatively speaking.

One could look at it this way–if the goal of a plan is to rescue the economy, and that plan is so ill thought out that it runs us into deeper debt without doing anything of permanent economic value,

And without shortening the corrective phase of a bust, and in fact very arguably LENGTHENING that corrective phase, then that plan is harmful to the economy for which it was proposed. Thus, wanting it to fail in being implemented is very wise.

Furthermore, this goes beyond just the rescue plan. Many people on this board see Obama’s economic policies as demonstrably bad for a country in a recession, and therefore wanting him to fail in implementing those policies is also a very wise decision.

The market would seem to bear this out, as it keeps making remarkable drops every time he opens his mouth to talk about what he wants to do economically. In any case, there was a WSJ article posted recently that basically argues that the country is not going to get better with Obama doing what he’s doing.

Given that the market listens to the WSJ above most other newspapers, this is a good news source to be watching for indications of how the market sees policy decisions or proposals.

THANK YOU. See, that’s an acceptable answer. The Politics board has a lot of problems. We might actually get some valuable discussion in if people answered each other’s questions more often.

No, the politics board does not have a lot of problems. It may have a lot of opinions and some of them may differ with yours but a differing opinion does not create an inherent problem.

If Tirib had given you what you deemed an un’acceptable answer’ would that be a “problem”? If so, that would indicate a requisite solution. Are you a solution donor?

Are you such an intellectual lighthouse that you could save many ships on an errant course and keep them off the rocks of misguided notions? Are you that good? That smart? That savvy?

Ya know push, for a guy I respect so much on the other forums, you’re kind of being a jerk.

I didn’t read Tirib’s post until you brought it up – didn’t see it was intended for me because he didn’t quote my last post. His answer is also terrific because it answers my question.

I disagree with both Tirib and Aragorn, but I can’t ignore that they were the only two posters to actually address my question. You went ad hominem instead. Thanks bud.

And yes I am that savvy.

Sorry that I don’t meet your standards so that you can agree with me everywhere I post. This is PWI and I’m not here to win a popularity contest.
[/quote]

Alright fair enough.

98

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

November, 2010 cannot come fast enough![/quote]
Edit: Doh! Nevermind, misread.

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Obama’s ideas will fail. I don’t think most people want them to but that is the reality of socialism, deficit spending, and inflation.

As they do fail we need economically savvy people standing at the ready to point the finger and say, “I told you so!”

Every person on this board with a shred of economic understanding (not 100m) should be writing letters to their representatives telling them not to support his garbage.

November, 2010 cannot come fast enough![/quote]

They are failing, miserably. He is trying to move very fast and has. It’s not the speed but what he is doing…I thought he was smart, though I disagreed with him…I was wrong, I now find him incredibly stupid…His economic policies alone are borderline treason.
“Hey guys, the economy’s in the tank! So let’s spend an astonishing amount of money we don’t have and jack peoples’ taxes through the roof!” Yeah that’s going to work.
Asshole.

100

[quote]belligerent wrote:
I think Obama is the most vile faggot I’ve ever seen and I think he’ll beat out FDR for the position of second worst president in history. This is the current list:

  1. Wilson
  2. FDR
  3. Bush

Obama will beat him out for spot #2.[/quote]

I agree with your assessment. If he continues on this current path, there is no choice…Actually, he may shoot for #1. He its trying really hard to succeed at failure.