# define success



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I keep hearing people say they want Obama to succeed, but success in my book may not be the same as his.
Obama success might mean the United States is totally socialistic. Mine would mean that capitalist values pull us out of the recession we are in. I'm sure many liberal politicians see success as getting out of Iraq at any cost, perhaps before we can accomplish anything so Bush looks bad. My idea of success is we get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but in a fashion that leaves them a free democracy ---- or republic like us.  Perhaps Obama will say he is successful if taxes can go to 50% in a few years. I see him being successful if taxes go down to half of what they are now.

So who's success are we talking about, and do we really want him to be successful? Would successful mean not a firearm anywhere in the United States. The United Nations would consider that successful. Ted Kennedy would see it as successful. I can hear it now, do it in remembrance of Ted. Remember the Wellstone funeral?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> so Bush looks bad


Yeah, that is what they're hung up on...trying to make Bush look bad. Are you serious?

He left office with historically low approval ratings. I know, I know, Bush was great...it was the media that made him look bad. :roll:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> Yeah, that is what they're hung up on...trying to make Bush look bad. Are you serious?
> 
> He left office with historically low approval ratings. I know, I know, Bush was great...it was the media that made him look bad. :roll:


 :koolaid: Smile, you have elected the most liberal underqualified man in America.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > so Bush looks bad
> ...


No, I was very disappointed in Bush on many things. Yes, it was the media that made him look worse than he actually was. Last, yes the democrats were hung up on making Bush look bad. I think they are so power hungry they would risk this nation to get their man in. I think they wanted to loose in Iraq because winning would have made it look like Bush was successful. Lets not forget the majority of democrats voted to go with Bush into Iraq. Then they jerked the rug out from under him. Planned or simply smoke and mirrors to hide their misjudgement it makes no difference. And no Bush didn't lie. 
Speaking of risking this nation for power ----- that's perhaps what the last election did.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Here is Rush's take.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

4CurlRedleg said:


> :koolaid: Smile, you have elected the most liberal underqualified man in America.


Way to go, you're able to make an asinine comment that has zero relevance to what I said. Good for you! :thumb:

I think for the sake of this forum, it'd be appreciated if you actually tried to make a point if you're going to post something. Thanks. :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Mr. Jones....

If you look at some of the bills that Bush proposed to the congress that got shot down or reconstructed by the dem congress....were not that bad. But then the congress got a hold of it and twisted and tweaked it. Could have been some very good legislation...but turned out to be mediocre because of how it left the congress. Then bush signed it because some of his things got accepted. With many add on's by the congress.

Also another reason why bush's rating is so low......the economy. Now if you blame the economy on him.....you need to do research. the housing market......not his fault. But again people (uneducated or misinformed) blame him. Who help to misinform or keep people uneducated.....media sources.

Again Bush did not do a great job. He did ok....could have done better. In my opinion....both the media and the dem congress made bush look worse than he really was. The congress had its own agenda after he was re-elected IMHO.

Now back on topic.....how I would like to see Obama succed...
1. Get the US $ strong again
2. Get the housing/lending world back to even keel......like in the early 90's.
3. get the economy stable
4. Create jobs
5. get the stock market stable

Now all of these have to do with each other. But I think it will take him his 4 years just to get these accomplished.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, he finally did something to judge him by. He signed a couple of executive orders. Would I say successful. No they are miserable failures. One in particular. It protects the Gitmo terrorists from prosecution as I understand it. Perhaps FOX news will make it more clear tonight.

Well the first executive order didn't do anything for the economy. It didn't do anything for freedom, or liberty. Not for Americans anyway. As far as freedom and liberty it will do a lot for the terrorists. I thought when Obama said he admired the ACLU he didn't mean the American Criminal Liberties Union.

Grade so far: F-


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Thats nice of him give terroists rights. More of whats to come. I think bush protected us from any further attacks and i am doing great. But i dont expect the govt to pay my way through life like the lazy welfare taking no job having illegal immigrant suporting liberals do.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> Way to go, you're able to make an asinine comment that has zero relevance to what I said. Good for you! :thumb:
> 
> I think for the sake of this forum, it'd be appreciated if you actually tried to make a point if you're going to post something. Thanks. :beer:


I'm sorry Jones, my mistake. There was a pattern with your last 3-4 posts of childish sarcasm that I felt compelled to respond.

Hopefully you have enough sack to see your way through this.
8)


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

KurtR said:


> Thats nice of him give terroists rights. More of whats to come. I think bush protected us from any further attacks and i am doing great. But i dont expect the govt to pay my way through life like the lazy welfare taking no job having illegal immigrant suporting liberals do.


AMEN!!!!!


----------



## Bucky Goldstein (Jun 23, 2007)

Do you take Rush Limbaugh seriously?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Bucky Goldstein said:


> Do you take Rush Limbaugh seriously?


 :lol: :lol: Do you take Al Franken seriously??? Let me guess you voted for him??? :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bucky Goldstein said:


> Do you take Rush Limbaugh seriously?


Only when he agrees with me.  Which is about 75% of the time or more. I might add that 99% of the time I have formed my opinion before I hear Rush. He doesn't sway me much, just reaffirms my conclusions. Some people don't like him, but I find it's normally those who are very impressed with themselves and don't understand that when Rush brags about himself he is doing it tongue in cheek. His humor takes a little getting used to. Once you understand it he can crack you up.

I don't like the word victimized, it's to liberal. Lets use the term demonized. 
The liberal media often demonizes those they wish to defeat. One only needs to look at the NRA to see an organization that has been demonized by the main stream media. They are very good at it. So good that some gun owners, even on this site will not take things seriously if the NRA said it. That gets us back to Rush Limbaugh. Many people don't take him serious because the media has demonized him. Now why would they do that. Simple he is the other side of the coin. They are liberal, and he is conservative. The only difference is he admits it and they don't. When your trying to come off as neutral that's a big difference. However, they can't just give him a pass, because he is out there exposing what they try to cover up. Like him or not I like that part of what he does.


----------



## Bucky Goldstein (Jun 23, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Bucky Goldstein said:
> 
> 
> > Do you take Rush Limbaugh seriously?
> ...


I do not like Rush Limbaugh. I am not at all impressed with myself. I do find him somewhat interesting ala Michael Savage.

It's good that "99% of the time" you form your opinions before hearing what Rush has to say. This particular thread may lead readers to form contrary views.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

I was thinking the same thing. Especially when a Rush you tube clip was provided amazingly similar to the subject of the thread 8)

One thing about that you tube clip: Limbaugh will never admit that Obama has done a good job on anything. Why would he, his "business" is to publically disagree with anything liberal. He makes a living selling anti-liberal propaganda, so he would be shooting himself in the foot if he were to agree with anything that Obama does. Of course, he needs to come off like the possibility exists that he could be happy with Obama, but in actuality, that will never happen.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Obama's plan to stimulate the economy will be a bust......figures quoted by economists show only 1 in 10 dollars spent will find it's way back in the economy in a useful way. with hiring 600k government workers, the simple cost of government, bear-ed by taxpayers will simply skyrocket.
the build out for roads and bridges will take at least 10 years, so hang on folks, the economy will only marginally benefit from this grand plan and it will take 10 years to play out!

this plan also does nothing to stimulate investment in future long term businesses, just a band aid, just a quick throw of the dart, so the dems can say, "see, we did all we could"... :eyeroll:

there is no thought or debate going on over how to craft this stimulus, in fact there is already a ton of wasteful crap in it.....20 million to improve the Lincoln Monument.....are u-kiddin-me??? same old **** from Washington! no "change" here......just a waste of taxpayer money!!

also i see GM and Chrysler are coming back with their hands open again at the end of March!! OMG......... :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I was thinking the same thing. Especially when a Rush you tube clip was provided amazingly similar to the subject of the thread


   Seabass your half right. I have been listening to many people say they want Obama to be successful. I had always been agreeing, but then I thought who's success are we talking about? I think most of us were thinking we want him to be successful in a way that is beneficial to the nation. Only a nut job would think anything else. So I think we all agree on that. However, many of us see success in a different light.

I think those thoughts went through a lot of minds, not just mine. Then I was watching the interview and Rush made some remark that made me think about the definition. I have not gone back and looked at the clip he may have actually said define success, so you can give Rush credit for the title of the thread. Maybe.

This idea has come up on here before with a slightly different perspective. I can not remember exactly how I phrased it, but it was something like "would you want someone who agrees with you, isn't that bright, and only succeeds with half his ideas, or would you want someone who's views are nearly opposite of you and brilliant who succeeds with nearly all his ideas". I like intelligent people, but like everyone else I prefer stupid opponents. 

Dear Lord I'm not thinking about anyone on this thread, and it's a beautiful day so far so please help me keep my mouth shut. Amen


----------

