Context Matters

[Ernie S.]

Conservatives shouldn't just settle for the role of effectively managing bad programs after Democrats vote them in.

Is it preferable to manage them poorly?

It is preferable to now allow bad programs to be passed. Call the GOP obstructionists if you will, but we are trying to prevent more bad programs we'll have to figure out how to decrapify.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What kinds of examples do you have where one side of the political aisle seems to willfully misunderstand another?

Limbaugh's "I hope Obama fails" is one of them. That's taken as Limbaugh saying he hopes America fails, when it was never anything other than Limbaugh's statement that the thinks that Obama's policies would be wrong for America so he hopes Obama can't do what Limbaugh thinks would be hurtful.


Here's another one which I learned from the NPR site. So yea NPR. I'm not always saying "Yea NPR" but this was a good example.



Obama Chooses Republicans' Words Carefully To Say They're Playing Politics : The Two-Way : NPR

In a Politico story that was posted late last evening, a "senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely" is quoted as saying:

"Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?"

There's a second part to that aide's quote, though:

"I just don't want to co-own the economy by having to tout that we passed a jobs bill that won't work or at least won't do enough."

So that's another example where people are thinking about what is best for America and honestly believe that Obama's plans don't address it ... but the words were spun to say that they were putting politics ahead of accomplishing good things.






What other examples have you seen? Either direction ....

I disagree with your assessment of both of those quotes. Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails does equate to wanting the country to fail. maybe that's not what he meant, but it comes across that way. If Obama fails, then the country fails. Period.

Only if you're enough of a blind, partisan, worshipful freak to think that Obama = America. He doesn't. And given the kind of insane, harmful shit he wants to do, Obama failing in his plans for this country = America wins. Period.

Then there's the anonymous quote. Taking the whole quote in context doesn't help. Either way, the aid is saying that the GOP is not willing to help the Dems pass the bill. If they want to debate it, fine, but hat's not what the aid said.

I realize that you're none too literate, but people who understand English know that there's a whopping big difference between "This bill sucks, so why would we pass it?" and "Obama's bill is so magically wonderful, we MUST refuse to pass it so others won't realize he's the best President EVER!"

If you can't see the difference, I suggest you get Obama to put a peephole in his belly button so that colon-sniffers like you can get a better view.

It's not too hard to figure out the GOP's strategy. All one has to do is go back and read the quote from Mitch MConnell - "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

End of story.

It's NOT too hard to figure out the GOP strategy; it appears to be the motivation that has your peabrain stumped. Obama sucks, and you're goddamned right that the GOP - and anyone else who cares more about the nation than they do about their "hero" - wants him to have as little time as possible to destroy it.

 

[WillowTree]

A. obama's policies are NOT good for the country and.


B. obama does need to be a one termer.




















Kerry on.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I disagree with your assessment of both of those quotes. Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails does equate to wanting the country to fail. maybe that's not what he meant, but it comes across that way. If Obama fails, then the country fails. Period.

Then there's the anonymous quote. Taking the whole quote in context doesn't help. Either way, the aid is saying that the GOP is not willing to help the Dems pass the bill. If they want to debate it, fine, but hat's not what the aid said.

It's not too hard to figure out the GOP's strategy. All one has to do is go back and read the quote from Mitch MConnell - "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

End of story.

The whole quote should be provided, so that people can judge.

Of course the aid is saying that the GOP is not willing to help pass the bill. Because the bill is not a good one. That part of the quote should be included. The GOP should not help Obama push the country off a cliff.



And no, wanting Obama to fail is not wanting America to fail. Did you want Bush to succeed with his plan to partially privatize social security? We on the right listened to what Obama had in mind for America. Unlike the people who went around with with a drug-like euphoric smile on their face chanting "hope and change", WE actually listened to the man.

Cap and trade? Bankrupt the coal industry? Take over 1/6th of the economy with no appreciation of the unintended consequences?

OF COURSE we wanted to stop what we knew Obama was planning.


Stopping Obama, or at least slowing him down = helping America not slide too far off the cliff while we wait for people to wake up out of whatever mass hypnosis they were under which allowed them to elect Obama.



Disagreeing with Obama and disagreeing with the Dems and disagreeing with you does not equal wanting America to fail.

It means that we have different ideas of what is needed for the success of America, and as Americans we have the right to express them.

And as intelligent human beings we can hope that the media and our President won't take our words out of context and present them in a manner which is 180 degrees from how we intended them.



But as we have seen over and over, this is not something we can expect from this President. Over and over he puts words into our mouths that we didn't say. Over and over he mischaracterizes the aims of conservatives.

I've never seen a politician speak so much. And I've never seen a politician so fond of straw men. As an American citizen, I think I have the right not to have my President so willfully misstate what I am saying and thinking and working for.

But since this President can't seem to help himself from misstating what I believe to further his own efforts to keep himself in office, that's just one more reason to hope he fails.



The hope and change drug fest is over. When even NPR can tell - sometimes - that Obama is spinning shamelessly that means that the country is close to being on the right track.

Mitch MConnell - "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

And he's absolutely right! That pathetic piece of shit needs to go!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Boehner just said the other day that taxes are a non-starter when it comes to the upcoming debt-reduction panel. That's compromise? Keep deluding yourself.

And what's compromise to you? Doing whatever Obama and the left want? Because for MOST people, compromise involves BOTH sides getting to specify something they want out of it.

Keep deluding yourself that life is about you getting everything you want, despite the evidence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What kinds of examples do you have where one side of the political aisle seems to willfully misunderstand another?

I'm sure the list is endless. One frequent target for deliberate distortion I just saw referenced again today was Pelosi's speech to county-level officials:

"We have to do this in partnership [across levels of government], and I wanted to bring up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention -- it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."​

Hate admitting it aloud, but that's a good example.

Not really, because it frankly doesn't sound any better that way. Why should the American people have to wait for their "leaders" to beneficently tell them how things are going to be, instead of having the chance to debate it publicly - I assume that's what she means by the "fog of controversy" that she wants to avoid; open public debate - and weigh in with their elected officials on how they should vote? Since when has that EVER been how this country works?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Conservatives shouldn't just settle for the role of effectively managing bad programs after Democrats vote them in.

Is it preferable to manage them poorly?

It's preferable to have programs that aren't destructive piles of shit . . . but really well-managed piles of shit!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is it preferable to manage them poorly?

lol .... of course not. That I did not say.

Good. There are a number of Republican governors who are stepping up to ensure that implementation goes well, instead of attempting to sabotage it as some prefer. They ought to be commended.

Yeah, I'm impressed at how well they're polishing up that turd. Good job, boys.

 

[Amelia]

I'm sure the list is endless. One frequent target for deliberate distortion I just saw referenced again today was Pelosi's speech to county-level officials:

"We have to do this in partnership [across levels of government], and I wanted to bring up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention -- it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."​

Hate admitting it aloud, but that's a good example.

Not really, because it frankly doesn't sound any better that way. Why should the American people have to wait for their "leaders" to beneficently tell them how things are going to be, instead of having the chance to debate it publicly - I assume that's what she means by the "fog of controversy" that she wants to avoid; open public debate - and weigh in with their elected officials on how they should vote? Since when has that EVER been how this country works?

I compare it to what happened here in Wisconsin. The public union members and outsiders like moveon.org, etc. were fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, which was the public unions being able to politically strong arm legislators from township level up to state level without regard for any economic indices while state law reinforced the untenable political inequities by such things as requiring state employees to pay unions for the privilege of being employed by the state, which meant that all employees no matter their ideology were being forced to fund the democratic party machine which was firmly and comfortably ensconced in our state until Scott Walker came along and shook things up.

To reach their end, the union members and outside agitators did their level best to loudly and wilfully misunderstand the valid points Walker was making - or maybe since unions are so divorced from economic realities they just weren't capable of understanding how much damage they did to city coffers in times of economic hardship. But whatever the reason, there was a lot of noise and it was drowning out the facts which the fiscally responsible person in the room was addressing.

So we here in Wisconsin had to ride out the noise, and the recounts and the recalls, and hope that we would still live to fight another day. Trusting that once Walker's reforms had a chance to take hold, the results would speak for themselves.




So what she was saying wasn't that different from what Walker was saying: When you finally get to see this law in action, you'll realize that the benefits I've been promising you are real.


There are differences in the nature of the protests, and in the way the bills were passed, but similarities in how people felt that their legislation was misunderstood. And similarities in how everyone was saying that after all the smoke clears, you'll understand that our side was right and the other side was obscuring the facts.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I understand your side just fine. Mitch's number one priority is to see Obama be a one-term pres (not to get the economy going again); Limbaugh wants to see Obama fail (which means the country fails); and the GOP aid, and those he speaks for, don't want to work with Obama because they aren't willing to give hima victory. It's pretty clear. But if you want to delude yourself, have at it. Thanks for playing.

Actually, Obama failing does not necessarily mean the country fails.... it really does depend on your definition of 'fail'. When the right talk about Obama 'failing', we mean in his left wing agenda - which, we believe, is socialistic - albeit 'socialism lite'.... kind of like they have in Europe.

Our nation was founded to be different to other nations.... we don't want to be like Europe, so... that's what 'fail' means.

Hope that helps.

I still say it makes us look stupid to pay all of our leaders gobs of money to see to that half of their colleagues fail and 'government' is a pain in the ass.

Wouldn't a road or a school make more sense? Isn't there something republicans can do to correct legislation instead of just shitting on everything?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hate admitting it aloud, but that's a good example.

Not really, because it frankly doesn't sound any better that way. Why should the American people have to wait for their "leaders" to beneficently tell them how things are going to be, instead of having the chance to debate it publicly - I assume that's what she means by the "fog of controversy" that she wants to avoid; open public debate - and weigh in with their elected officials on how they should vote? Since when has that EVER been how this country works?

I compare it to what happened here in Wisconsin. The public union members and outsiders like moveon.org, etc. were fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, which was the public unions being able to politically strong arm legislators from township level up to state level without regard for any economic indices while state law reinforced the untenable political inequities by such things as requiring state employees to pay unions for the privilege of being employed by the state, which meant that all employees no matter their ideology were being forced to fund the democratic party machine which was firmly and comfortably ensconced in our state until Scott Walker came along and shook things up.

To reach their end, the union members and outside agitators did their level best to loudly and wilfully misunderstand the valid points Walker was making - or maybe since unions are so divorced from economic realities they just weren't capable of understanding how much damage they did to city coffers in times of economic hardship. But whatever the reason, there was a lot of noise and it was drowning out the facts which the fiscally responsible person in the room was addressing.

So we here in Wisconsin had to ride out the noise, and the recounts and the recalls, and hope that we would still live to fight another day. Trusting that once Walker's reforms had a chance to take hold, the results would speak for themselves.




So what she was saying wasn't that different from what Walker was saying: When you finally get to see this law in action, you'll realize that the benefits I've been promising you are real.


There are differences in the nature of the protests, and in the way the bills were passed, but similarities in how people felt that their legislation was misunderstood. And similarities in how everyone was saying that after all the smoke clears, you'll understand that our side was right and the other side was obscuring the facts.

Sorry, but I don't want "brilliant leaders" from either side passing laws "for my own good" and just assuring me that once I see them in action, I'll understand how much better off I am. I want to see the damned bill, I want to know what's in it, and I want to debate it, with both sides telling their representatives what they think. And if it means having to listen to and wade through a lot of bullshit . . . well, I'm a big girl. I can handle that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand your side just fine. Mitch's number one priority is to see Obama be a one-term pres (not to get the economy going again); Limbaugh wants to see Obama fail (which means the country fails); and the GOP aid, and those he speaks for, don't want to work with Obama because they aren't willing to give hima victory. It's pretty clear. But if you want to delude yourself, have at it. Thanks for playing.

Actually, Obama failing does not necessarily mean the country fails.... it really does depend on your definition of 'fail'. When the right talk about Obama 'failing', we mean in his left wing agenda - which, we believe, is socialistic - albeit 'socialism lite'.... kind of like they have in Europe.

Our nation was founded to be different to other nations.... we don't want to be like Europe, so... that's what 'fail' means.

Hope that helps.

I still say it makes us look stupid to pay all of our leaders gobs of money to see to that half of their colleagues fail and 'government' is a pain in the ass.

Wouldn't a road or a school make more sense? Isn't there something republicans can do to correct legislation instead of just shitting on everything?

With less-than-overwhelming control of one House of Congress? Not really. About all they can do is block the most egregious shit.

 

[edthecynic]

What kinds of examples do you have where one side of the political aisle seems to willfully misunderstand another?

Limbaugh's "I hope Obama fails" is one of them. That's taken as Limbaugh saying he hopes America fails, when it was never anything other than Limbaugh's statement that the thinks that Obama's policies would be wrong for America so he hopes Obama can't do what Limbaugh thinks would be hurtful.


Here's another one which I learned from the NPR site. So yea NPR. I'm not always saying "Yea NPR" but this was a good example.



Obama Chooses Republicans' Words Carefully To Say They're Playing Politics : The Two-Way : NPR








So that's another example where people are thinking about what is best for America and honestly believe that Obama's plans don't address it ... but the words were spun to say that they were putting politics ahead of accomplishing good things.






What other examples have you seen? Either direction ....

I disagree with your assessment of both of those quotes. Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails does equate to wanting the country to fail..

Bullshit, He repeatedly clarifies that what he wants is for Obama to fail at implementing his Agenda. Perhaps you should actually listen to him, and not rely on Quotes taken out of Context and posted on Liberal Blog Sites.

Actually, your MessiahRushie has said exactly how he hopes Obama's failure will effect the American people. No rational person would say that hoping all hard working American Joes suffering the loss of their jobs is something good for America. It is the ranting of a spiteful loser who wants everyone to suffer until he gets his way.

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

 

[Meister]

I disagree with your assessment of both of those quotes. Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails does equate to wanting the country to fail..

Bullshit, He repeatedly clarifies that what he wants is for Obama to fail at implementing his Agenda. Perhaps you should actually listen to him, and not rely on Quotes taken out of Context and posted on Liberal Blog Sites.

Actually, your MessiahRushie has said exactly how he hopes Obama's failure will effect the American people. No rational person would say that hoping all hard working American Joes suffering the loss of their jobs is something good for America. It is the ranting of a spiteful loser who wants everyone to suffer until he gets his way.

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed. Kinda looks like that right now, doesn't it?

 

[edthecynic]

Bullshit, He repeatedly clarifies that what he wants is for Obama to fail at implementing his Agenda. Perhaps you should actually listen to him, and not rely on Quotes taken out of Context and posted on Liberal Blog Sites.

Actually, your MessiahRushie has said exactly how he hopes Obama's failure will effect the American people. No rational person would say that hoping all hard working American Joes suffering the loss of their jobs is something good for America. It is the ranting of a spiteful loser who wants everyone to suffer until he gets his way.

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed. Kinda looks like that right now, doesn't it?

It looks like your MessiahRushie and the GOP got their wish for America's failure.
You CON$ have been saying what a failure Obama is, so that kinda shoots a hole in your "If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed" bullshit!

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, your MessiahRushie has said exactly how he hopes Obama's failure will effect the American people. No rational person would say that hoping all hard working American Joes suffering the loss of their jobs is something good for America. It is the ranting of a spiteful loser who wants everyone to suffer until he gets his way.

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed. Kinda looks like that right now, doesn't it?

It looks like your MessiahRushie and the GOP got their wish for America's failure.
You CON$ have been saying what a failure Obama is, so that kinda shoots a hole in your "If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed" bullshit!

Really, MORE appealing to Rush as though that had some sort of actual merit to it. You quote Rush with no context (in a thread about context - oh the irony) attribute that to conservatives though almost no one here listens to Rush at all and use him as an example of what the GOP wants though he has no connections to whatsoever to a political position. He is a shock jock. Nothing more. How often does the right here pull idiotic quotes from Norman Goldman, Ed Shultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes and the rest of the extreme left kooks that are on the radio and attribute them to all you left wingers here? Perhaps, that is because the conservatives here actually think that radio extremists do not represent the views of people here? Maybe they think that, because they can think for themselves, they assume you can too instead of thinking you allow a talk show host to do it for you. Try it out sometime, you would realize that conservatives here are not prone to listening to Rush at all. Who would have thought....

 

[Meister]

If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed. Kinda looks like that right now, doesn't it?

It looks like your MessiahRushie and the GOP got their wish for America's failure.
You CON$ have been saying what a failure Obama is, so that kinda shoots a hole in your "If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed" bullshit!

Really, MORE appealing to Rush as though that had some sort of actual merit to it. You quote Rush with no context (in a thread about context - oh the irony) attribute that to conservatives though almost no one here listens to Rush at all and use him as an example of what the GOP wants though he has no connections to whatsoever to a political position. He is a shock jock. Nothing more. How often does the right here pull idiotic quotes from Norman Goldman, Ed Shultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes and the rest of the extreme left kooks that are on the radio and attribute them to all you left wingers here? Perhaps, that is because the conservatives here actually think that radio extremists do not represent the views of people here? Maybe they think that, because they can think for themselves, they assume you can too instead of thinking you allow a talk show host to do it for you. Try it out sometime, you would realize that conservatives here are not prone to listening to Rush at all. Who would have thought....

 

[edthecynic]

If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed. Kinda looks like that right now, doesn't it?

It looks like your MessiahRushie and the GOP got their wish for America's failure.
You CON$ have been saying what a failure Obama is, so that kinda shoots a hole in your "If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed" bullshit!

Really, MORE appealing to Rush as though that had some sort of actual merit to it. You quote Rush with no context (in a thread about context - oh the irony) attribute that to conservatives though almost no one here listens to Rush at all and use him as an example of what the GOP wants though he has no connections to whatsoever to a political position. He is a shock jock. Nothing more. How often does the right here pull idiotic quotes from Norman Goldman, Ed Shultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes and the rest of the extreme left kooks that are on the radio and attribute them to all you left wingers here? Perhaps, that is because the conservatives here actually think that radio extremists do not represent the views of people here? Maybe they think that, because they can think for themselves, they assume you can too instead of thinking you allow a talk show host to do it for you. Try it out sometime, you would realize that conservatives here are not prone to listening to Rush at all. Who would have thought....

I gave the context! It was PURE SPITE!!! America had just elected Obama and the voice of the GOP wanted ALL working Americans to SUFFER for it. He even said it was "euphoric" for him to watch as suffering Americans learn a painful lesson for their vote. The whole rant was nothing but condescension and spite.

The GOP made your MessiahRushie an honorary congressman so that makes him more than just some opinionated blowhard. The GOP meets with him and he has admitted that they ask him to do their dirty work for them so the GOP can pretend to be taking the high road.

And you CON$ habitually take any kook from around the world and brand all Libs with it. CON$ on this messageboard only started denying that they parrot your MessiahRushie after I came here and made you DittoTards eat his words. The OP brought up Stuttering LimpTard so that makes him fair game for this entire thread.

 

[FA_Q2]

It looks like your MessiahRushie and the GOP got their wish for America's failure.
You CON$ have been saying what a failure Obama is, so that kinda shoots a hole in your "If Obama succeeds, yes, Joe the Plumber will be unemployed" bullshit!

Really, MORE appealing to Rush as though that had some sort of actual merit to it. You quote Rush with no context (in a thread about context - oh the irony) attribute that to conservatives though almost no one here listens to Rush at all and use him as an example of what the GOP wants though he has no connections to whatsoever to a political position. He is a shock jock. Nothing more. How often does the right here pull idiotic quotes from Norman Goldman, Ed Shultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes and the rest of the extreme left kooks that are on the radio and attribute them to all you left wingers here? Perhaps, that is because the conservatives here actually think that radio extremists do not represent the views of people here? Maybe they think that, because they can think for themselves, they assume you can too instead of thinking you allow a talk show host to do it for you. Try it out sometime, you would realize that conservatives here are not prone to listening to Rush at all. Who would have thought....

I gave the context! It was PURE SPITE!!! America had just elected Obama and the voice of the GOP wanted ALL working Americans to SUFFER for it. He even said it was "euphoric" for him to watch as suffering Americans learn a painful lesson for their vote. The whole rant was nothing but condescension and spite.

The GOP made your MessiahRushie an honorary congressman so that makes him more than just some opinionated blowhard. The GOP meets with him and he has admitted that they ask him to do their dirty work for them so the GOP can pretend to be taking the high road.

And you CON$ habitually take any kook from around the world and brand all Libs with it. CON$ on this messageboard only started denying that they parrot your MessiahRushie after I came here and made you DittoTards eat his words. The OP brought up Stuttering LimpTard so that makes him fair game for this entire thread.

Yup, you single handedly stopped all the right from quoting Rush. So believable....

I am also sure that the GOP gets all their marching orders from him and he leads the party. Also really believable...

Those so called cons still do not take any of those idiots on the radio and brand you with them so stop trying to equate it with anything else. Also, it is the left wingers here that are habitually guilty of such an act. Think tea party. They must ALL be racists because ridiot pulled up a picture or two that PROVES it. Hmmm, seems you are reflecting. Reflecting hard....


Also, you said that you provided the context. Here is what you provided in your post:

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

Those were the quotes as stated. Looks like context is the one thing that you are missing. The vitriolic spitting was there before you quoted but... a noticeable lack of context was defiantly there. I do like how you are taking the quotes from 2 different broadcasts and using them together. At least you had the decency to date them.

 

[edthecynic]

Really, MORE appealing to Rush as though that had some sort of actual merit to it. You quote Rush with no context (in a thread about context - oh the irony) attribute that to conservatives though almost no one here listens to Rush at all and use him as an example of what the GOP wants though he has no connections to whatsoever to a political position. He is a shock jock. Nothing more. How often does the right here pull idiotic quotes from Norman Goldman, Ed Shultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes and the rest of the extreme left kooks that are on the radio and attribute them to all you left wingers here? Perhaps, that is because the conservatives here actually think that radio extremists do not represent the views of people here? Maybe they think that, because they can think for themselves, they assume you can too instead of thinking you allow a talk show host to do it for you. Try it out sometime, you would realize that conservatives here are not prone to listening to Rush at all. Who would have thought....

I gave the context! It was PURE SPITE!!! America had just elected Obama and the voice of the GOP wanted ALL working Americans to SUFFER for it. He even said it was "euphoric" for him to watch as suffering Americans learn a painful lesson for their vote. The whole rant was nothing but condescension and spite.

The GOP made your MessiahRushie an honorary congressman so that makes him more than just some opinionated blowhard. The GOP meets with him and he has admitted that they ask him to do their dirty work for them so the GOP can pretend to be taking the high road.

And you CON$ habitually take any kook from around the world and brand all Libs with it. CON$ on this messageboard only started denying that they parrot your MessiahRushie after I came here and made you DittoTards eat his words. The OP brought up Stuttering LimpTard so that makes him fair game for this entire thread.

Yup, you single handedly stopped all the right from quoting Rush. So believable....

I am also sure that the GOP gets all their marching orders from him and he leads the party. Also really believable...

Those so called cons still do not take any of those idiots on the radio and brand you with them so stop trying to equate it with anything else. Also, it is the left wingers here that are habitually guilty of such an act. Think tea party. They must ALL be racists because ridiot pulled up a picture or two that PROVES it. Hmmm, seems you are reflecting. Reflecting hard....


By the way, the OP is a diehard leftist, you're not helping your point.

Also, you said that you provided the context. Here is what you provided in your post:

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

Those were the quotes as stated. Looks like context is the one thing that you are missing. The vitriolic spitting was there before you quoted but... a noticeable lack of context was defiantly there. I do like how you are taking the quotes from 2 different broadcasts and using them together. At least you had the decency to date them.

The context is missing because you edited my post. I pointed out that your MessiahRushie hoping Americans would suffer the loss of their jobs for not voting GOP was the "ranting of a spiteful loser who wants everyone to suffer until he gets his way." There! Take that!

And the second quote gives your MessiahRushie's own definition of who he means when he talks about "Joe the plumbers" becoming unemployed in 6 months.

Also, name one of those Lib hosts who the Dems made an honorary Congressman!!!

Here's my unedited post:

Actually, your MessiahRushie has said exactly how he hopes Obama's failure will effect the American people. No rational person would say that hoping all hard working American Joes suffering the loss of their jobs is something good for America. It is the ranting of a spiteful loser who wants everyone to suffer until he gets his way.

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen