Hoping for the worst

[saveliberty]

You seem to be implying that only those who disagree with Obama do this. Am I reading that right?

-TSO

Opinions are fine and of course rigid ones are to be expected in any open forum. But you surely can't miss the fact that is a huge surge of people who would rather see the entire country go down in flames than to see Barack Obama as President of the United States. It's evident in postings, it's evident in POSTERS, it's evident in blogs, it's evident on right wing media, it's evident by Christian fundamentalists who are preaching that Obama is the anti-Christ, and it' evident by the shear fact that threats against his life have increased 400% over the previous administration according to the Secret Service.

I disagree with your opinion that detractors of the current administration want to see the country get damaged. In most cases they feel that this administration does not serve the country well. It's the same as when Rush proclaimed he wanted Obama to fail. It wasn't that he wanted the man or the country to fail, but his policies.

The same thing takes place with every administration; the opposing side will attack no matter what happens. They disagree with their politics and thus anything done incorrectly is pointed out. It's not that they want the country to fail, but they want their side to retake control of the country.

I'll give you that there are some who dislike the president because of the color of his skin. That's going to happen. He is black, and no matter what anyone thinks happened in the previous election, there are going to continue to be racists. With that said, in no way am I implying that anyone who disagrees with the president is racist...unfortunately, it appears many on the left do mean it.

-TSO

I am not interested in Obama or his policies failing. I want him to see that his policies will fail and to change them into ones that will work. An important distinction from what you said.

 

[Oldandtired]

Yeah. Unemployment, the state of the economy, that kind of stuff strikes me more as "I told you so" or "See!" than a desire for things to get worse.

What's quite clear is that there is a very large contingent of the right who is wishing, hoping, and praying every day that we suffer another devastating terrorist attack. So then they can have their "see!" and "I told you so" moment and feel vindicated for all the criminal policies implemented in the war on terror and the leverage to push for even more. Some of them even admit it.

Maybe, if they kept their fingers crossed and several thousand Americans died, they'd even get to use it as justification for a war with Iran.

You're right to be repulsed.

Quentin...in all fairness...in no way was that guest expressing hope of an attack. If you watched the entire interview, as I did, and not just the clip, he was making it quite clear that IF congress and the WH do not change their thinking, it may take an attack to change things.

I happen to agree with him 100%. But he by no means wants an attack. That clip is very disingenuous and shows you how wing nuts....both left and right....post things on the interent that are designed to be completely taken out of context.

I love my wife dearly.....

But....If I was filmed saying "I hate you having to do all of that work by yourself", someone can post it on the internet as the following "I hate you"....leaving off the part that changes the entire meaning.

 

[saveliberty]

Yeah. Unemployment, the state of the economy, that kind of stuff strikes me more as "I told you so" or "See!" than a desire for things to get worse.

What's quite clear is that there is a very large contingent of the right who is wishing, hoping, and praying every day that we suffer another devastating terrorist attack. So then they can have their "see!" and "I told you so" moment and feel vindicated for all the criminal policies implemented in the war on terror and the leverage to push for even more. Some of them even admit it.

Maybe, if they kept their fingers crossed and several thousand Americans died, they'd even get to use it as justification for a war with Iran.

You're right to be repulsed.

Quentin...in all fairness...in no way was that guest expressing hope of an attack. If you watched the entire interview, as I did, and not just the clip, he was making it quite clear that IF congress and the WH do not change their thinking, it may take an attack to change things.

I happen to agree with him 100%. But he by no means wants an attack. That clip is very disingenuous and shows you how wing nuts....both left and right....post things on the interent that are designed to be completely taken out of context.

I love my wife dearly.....

But....If I was filmed saying "I hate you having to do all of that work by yourself", someone can post it on the internet as the following "I hate you"....leaving off the part that changes the entire meaning.

...and what has happened? An attack has changed our reponse to terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, it one to make the change. Pretty much what the poorly quoted Rush guest said huh?

 

[Oldandtired]

Yeah. Unemployment, the state of the economy, that kind of stuff strikes me more as "I told you so" or "See!" than a desire for things to get worse.

What's quite clear is that there is a very large contingent of the right who is wishing, hoping, and praying every day that we suffer another devastating terrorist attack. So then they can have their "see!" and "I told you so" moment and feel vindicated for all the criminal policies implemented in the war on terror and the leverage to push for even more. Some of them even admit it.

Maybe, if they kept their fingers crossed and several thousand Americans died, they'd even get to use it as justification for a war with Iran.

You're right to be repulsed.

Quentin...in all fairness...in no way was that guest expressing hope of an attack. If you watched the entire interview, as I did, and not just the clip, he was making it quite clear that IF congress and the WH do not change their thinking, it may take an attack to change things.

I happen to agree with him 100%. But he by no means wants an attack. That clip is very disingenuous and shows you how wing nuts....both left and right....post things on the interent that are designed to be completely taken out of context.

I love my wife dearly.....

But....If I was filmed saying "I hate you having to do all of that work by yourself", someone can post it on the internet as the following "I hate you"....leaving off the part that changes the entire meaning.

...and what has happened? An attack has changed our reponse to terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, it one to make the change. Pretty much what the poorly quoted Rush guest said huh?

Actually, it was a Beck guest.....and yes, what he said was true.....but it does not mean that he wishes that his theory has a chance to be proven to be true.

Typical wingnut manipulation of the facts.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Hoping for the worst

The biggest terrorist attack happened when Obama was sworn into office. It'll take a lot to top that.

Gawd you are a DOUCHE!!

And you prove the point of the OP!

 

[QUENTIN]

Well since someone said they disagree that "detractors of the administration" wish for the worst, that's not at all what I was saying.

I'm a detractor of the administration. I don't want their policies to fail but I strongly suspect they will. Most opponents of the Admin are the same way to varying extents. Saying he's a terrible president or the policies are terrible isn't the same thing as saying you hope they fail.

I'm talking specifically terrorism, where there is a vocal contingent of the bloodthirsty, the Muslim hating, and the Surveillance State advocates can't help but frothing at the mouth every time they talk about how vulnerable we are and how if we don't implement the policies they're pushing, we're all doomed. They want nothing more than a terrorist attack which they can claim proves them right and justifies every curtailment of rights or expansion of empire they dream of.

I've seen the whole Scheuer clip and read his thoughts on the subjects. He thinks he's right and the government's gone soft and he wants an attack to vindicate him.

 

[Oldandtired]

Well since someone said they disagree that "detractors of the administration" wish for the worst, that's not at all what I was saying.

I'm a detractor of the administration. I don't want their policies to fail but I strongly suspect they will. Most opponents of the Admin are the same way to varying extents. Saying he's a terrible president or the policies are terrible isn't the same thing as saying you hope they fail.

I'm talking specifically terrorism, where there is a vocal contingent of the bloodthirsty, the Muslim hating, and the Surveillance State advocates can't help but frothing at the mouth every time they talk about how vulnerable we are and how if we don't implement the policies they're pushing, we're all doomed. They want nothing more than a terrorist attack which they can claim proves them right and justifies every curtailment of rights or expansion of empire they dream of.

I've seen the whole Scheuer clip and read his thoughts on the subjects. He thinks he's right and the government's gone soft and he wants an attack to vindicate him.

As for terrorism...I certainly hope they do not fail.

As for economy....please let them fail...and quickly...before it is too late to recover as a free economy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well since someone said they disagree that "detractors of the administration" wish for the worst, that's not at all what I was saying.

I'm a detractor of the administration. I don't want their policies to fail but I strongly suspect they will. Most opponents of the Admin are the same way to varying extents. Saying he's a terrible president or the policies are terrible isn't the same thing as saying you hope they fail.

I'm talking specifically terrorism, where there is a vocal contingent of the bloodthirsty, the Muslim hating, and the Surveillance State advocates can't help but frothing at the mouth every time they talk about how vulnerable we are and how if we don't implement the policies they're pushing, we're all doomed. They want nothing more than a terrorist attack which they can claim proves them right and justifies every curtailment of rights or expansion of empire they dream of.

I've seen the whole Scheuer clip and read his thoughts on the subjects. He thinks he's right and the government's gone soft and he wants an attack to vindicate him.

As for terrorism...I certainly hope they do not fail.

As for economy....please let them fail...and quickly...before it is too late to recover as a free economy.

Please define a free economy. And, if what you mean by this term is an economic system unregulated, and tax free, say so. But explain how a free society lives without regulation or revenue.

 

[MaggieMae]

I dislike OL'BO and think his agenda sucks and he's totally incompetent as the PRez. I would never wish another terrorist attack on this country to prove that point though. . Jeeze. Anyone who does is an idiot in my book.

I would hope not. Though we disagree most of the time, you're too smart to be that stupid. But they do exist, and I would have to go back to some of the ugly statements posted in the aftermath of the Christmas Day panty-bomber (or whatever he's being called) to prove it.

 

[MaggieMae]

I dislike OL'BO and think his agenda sucks and he's totally incompetent as the PRez. I would never wish another terrorist attack on this country to prove that point though. . Jeeze. Anyone who does is an idiot in my book.

let's be clear,, maggie and the lunatic left say the things they do not because they are true, but because obamalama and the dems have failed so miserably in the first year. Instead of taking responsibility for their failures and their policies they just extend the "blame booooooooooooooosh song to include anybody who disagrees with them." End of story..

Where did I blame Bush? If anything in the OP, I defended the fact that 911 wasn't personally his fault as many of the fringers on the left accused him.

 

[Oldandtired]

Well since someone said they disagree that "detractors of the administration" wish for the worst, that's not at all what I was saying.

I'm a detractor of the administration. I don't want their policies to fail but I strongly suspect they will. Most opponents of the Admin are the same way to varying extents. Saying he's a terrible president or the policies are terrible isn't the same thing as saying you hope they fail.

I'm talking specifically terrorism, where there is a vocal contingent of the bloodthirsty, the Muslim hating, and the Surveillance State advocates can't help but frothing at the mouth every time they talk about how vulnerable we are and how if we don't implement the policies they're pushing, we're all doomed. They want nothing more than a terrorist attack which they can claim proves them right and justifies every curtailment of rights or expansion of empire they dream of.

I've seen the whole Scheuer clip and read his thoughts on the subjects. He thinks he's right and the government's gone soft and he wants an attack to vindicate him.

As for terrorism...I certainly hope they do not fail.

As for economy....please let them fail...and quickly...before it is too late to recover as a free economy.

Please define a free economy. And, if what you mean by this term is an economic system unregulated, and tax free, say so. But explain how a free society lives without regulation or revenue.

A free economy allows for pure competiton with safeguards to prevent monopolies while promoting the development of oligopolies.

Yes...oligopolies will do for the economy a lot more than any government regulations.

 

[MaggieMae]

You seem to be implying that only those who disagree with Obama do this. Am I reading that right?

-TSO

Opinions are fine and of course rigid ones are to be expected in any open forum. But you surely can't miss the fact that is a huge surge of people who would rather see the entire country go down in flames than to see Barack Obama as President of the United States. It's evident in postings, it's evident in POSTERS, it's evident in blogs, it's evident on right wing media, it's evident by Christian fundamentalists who are preaching that Obama is the anti-Christ, and it' evident by the shear fact that threats against his life have increased 400% over the previous administration according to the Secret Service.

I disagree with your opinion that detractors of the current administration want to see the country get damaged. In most cases they feel that this administration does not serve the country well. It's the same as when Rush proclaimed he wanted Obama to fail. It wasn't that he wanted the man or the country to fail, but his policies.

The same thing takes place with every administration; the opposing side will attack no matter what happens. They disagree with their politics and thus anything done incorrectly is pointed out. It's not that they want the country to fail, but they want their side to retake control of the country.

I'll give you that there are some who dislike the president because of the color of his skin. That's going to happen. He is black, and no matter what anyone thinks happened in the previous election, there are going to continue to be racists. With that said, in no way am I implying that anyone who disagrees with the president is racist...unfortunately, it appears many on the left do mean it.

-TSO

No, no and no again. It used to be that people voted one way for a new administration, but once installed, the losers accepted the fact gracefully because that's just the way it was. It's the other guy's turn, and we lived with it and hoped for the best. We didn't get complacent, and still argued policy and ideology, but weren't at each other's throats over small stuff and worked out differences over the bigger issues. And even helped out when we could!! Surprise surprise! And even sometimes shamelessly admitted we liked the "other guy" after all!!

But ever since the bitter divide that occurred since Clinton was elected, the political conscience of Americans has been slipping from logic and common sense to downright lunacy. And we cannot survive as a global leader as long as this continues. Why? Because if it gets bad enough, there will be so much anger that those capable of fixing our problems will be spending all their time killing snakes and putting out fires amid their own supporters, and the patient will die in the meantime.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

and ignores or attacks any opinion which differs then their own

Amen.. this is part and parcel from the Fascist Left.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As for terrorism...I certainly hope they do not fail.

As for economy....please let them fail...and quickly...before it is too late to recover as a free economy.

Please define a free economy. And, if what you mean by this term is an economic system unregulated, and tax free, say so. But explain how a free society lives without regulation or revenue.

A free economy allows for pure competiton with safeguards to prevent monopolies while promoting the development of oligopolies.

Yes...oligopolies will do for the economy a lot more than any government regulations.

For the record: Oligopolies, the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors.
And how do oligopolies differ from cartels, or better yet, who is to prevent the few sellers from conspiring to reduce producton, raise prices and increase profits?
PS, And who benefits from such a system, and how?

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah. Unemployment, the state of the economy, that kind of stuff strikes me more as "I told you so" or "See!" than a desire for things to get worse.

What's quite clear is that there is a very large contingent of the right who is wishing, hoping, and praying every day that we suffer another devastating terrorist attack. So then they can have their "see!" and "I told you so" moment and feel vindicated for all the criminal policies implemented in the war on terror and the leverage to push for even more. Some of them even admit it.

Maybe, if they kept their fingers crossed and several thousand Americans died, they'd even get to use it as justification for a war with Iran.

You're right to be repulsed.

Quentin...in all fairness...in no way was that guest expressing hope of an attack. If you watched the entire interview, as I did, and not just the clip, he was making it quite clear that IF congress and the WH do not change their thinking, it may take an attack to change things.

I happen to agree with him 100%. But he by no means wants an attack. That clip is very disingenuous and shows you how wing nuts....both left and right....post things on the interent that are designed to be completely taken out of context.

I love my wife dearly.....

But....If I was filmed saying "I hate you having to do all of that work by yourself", someone can post it on the internet as the following "I hate you"....leaving off the part that changes the entire meaning.

Michael Scheuer is very good at identifying what the problems are in combating Islamic terrorism, especially al-Qaeda, but he always leaves me feeling even more depressed because if you listen to him, there's really nothing that can be done. In this video he talks about al-Qaeda's increasing influence in many more countries, including Yemen, than before 911 and yet says the US can't use "surrogate" countries to help us fight them. But he offers no suggestions how ELSE we should deal with the problem. He never does.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Ex-CIA agent: Threat from al Qaeda greater now than on 9/11 « - Blogs from CNN.com

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

But... but.... but... I though the mere prescence of Obama the Magic Negro was supposed to put and end to all this?

 

[MaggieMae]

As for terrorism...I certainly hope they do not fail.

As for economy....please let them fail...and quickly...before it is too late to recover as a free economy.

Please define a free economy. And, if what you mean by this term is an economic system unregulated, and tax free, say so. But explain how a free society lives without regulation or revenue.

A free economy allows for pure competiton with safeguards to prevent monopolies while promoting the development of oligopolies.

Yes...oligopolies will do for the economy a lot more than any government regulations.

And it seems that mega monopolies rule anymore. Where were all the dissenters before now, while the SEC approved every merger and takeover imaginable, and then left them alone with no "safeguards" in place as they devoured small businesses?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I dislike OL'BO and think his agenda sucks and he's totally incompetent as the PRez. I would never wish another terrorist attack on this country to prove that point though. . Jeeze. Anyone who does is an idiot in my book.

let's be clear,, maggie and the lunatic left say the things they do not because they are true, but because obamalama and the dems have failed so miserably in the first year. Instead of taking responsibility for their failures and their policies they just extend the "blame booooooooooooooosh song to include anybody who disagrees with them." End of story..

We can end all that Willow when we accept responsibility for where we screwed up.

You up for that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

and ignores or attacks any opinion which differs then their own

Amen.. this is part and parcel from the Fascist Left.

Soggy, it is the fascist right.

Get straight, or stay bent.

 

[Oldandtired]

Please define a free economy. And, if what you mean by this term is an economic system unregulated, and tax free, say so. But explain how a free society lives without regulation or revenue.

A free economy allows for pure competiton with safeguards to prevent monopolies while promoting the development of oligopolies.

Yes...oligopolies will do for the economy a lot more than any government regulations.

For the record: Oligopolies, the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors.
And how do oligopolies differ from cartels, or better yet, who is to prevent the few sellers from conspiring to reduce producton, raise prices and increase profits?
PS, And who benefits from such a system, and how?

Oligopolies, in a pure competition environment have the few major players that set the price and the multitude of smaller players that follow the lead. It eliminates those that try to undercut and opens the door for the smaller players to enter the marketplace with a proven business model to follow and allow for the possibility of become a larger player if one chooses.

In an oligopoly, the ability for one to overprice is completely eliminated and such is best for pure competition. In essence, demand is allowed to dictate price so the consumer is in control.

Telecommunications is an excellent example of this. No one can complain about the cost of telephone use, nor can anyone say that a new player is unable to break into the market.