Thursday, February 26, 2009

Success or Failure?

Do you have a favorite sport or team or maybe you have a son or daughter that plays?

When "your team" is playing.. (even if you don't like the current coach and think he's an idiot), and their biggest rival opponent is about to score on your (son/daughter/etc's) team to win the big game, would you...
A- Hope the opponent is successful
B- Hope the opponent fails

When you are involved in a big sales deal that comes down to a final price proposal from your biggest competitor, do you..
A- Hope your competitor is successful
B- Hope your competitor fails

As countries go... I love America, I am a fan of America.
Republican or Democrat or whatever... I am a fan of America.
I oppose what is bad for America.

On this blog I have opposed Bush on failure to secure the Border because it was bad for America... my team.
I opposed those who hoped for America's failure in Iraq because it was bad for America.
I oppose abortion for many reasons... but it is certainly bad for America.
Corruption is bad for America no matter where it occurs and neither party has an exclusive on it.
I oppose restricting our rights, I am a fan of America.

Democrats led by Obama, Pelosi and Reid are currently destroying free market capitalism and replacing it with pure socialism which may change America for a full generation (25 years) before anyone can undo the damage being done to our rights, our economy and to the system of government put in place by our forefathers as we knew it.

Yes, along with Rush Limbaugh and a growing number of concerned Americans, (Republicans, Democrats and Independents) ... yes, I hope Obama Pelosi and Reid fail. I hope they fail miserably.
Like I said, I am a fan of America.

-red stater

Labels: ,

22 Comments:

Blogger Otter said...

But they are still part of your team, whether you like the coach or not.

3:17 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

No... you missed the question.
the coach had nothing to do with it.
lol

The question is in life and sports do you want your opponents to succeed or fail?

People who are against America (anti-American) are not on my team no matter where they live and as I pointed out people who do things to harm America (even George W Bush) get my criticism.

The point is that it is perfectly okay... even patriotic to hope that Obama, Pelosi and Reid fail to implement their socialist agenda.. an agenda that is contrary to everything American.

I not only hope Obama fails, we should all pray that he fails.
-red

5:05 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Your point I think is that we are all on the same team here... in that case I hope the parent who is trying to get the coach to cut spending on the defense and also cut back on the offense, give away brownies instead of selling them for fund-raising and changing our uniforms to pink... I hope that group of parents fails miserably in doing so.

For the good of the team.
-red

5:27 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

However, if your son or daughter was playing for a team and you didn't like the coach or his or her methods but in the end got results, would you still be opposed to them?

6:04 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

otter... forget the coach dude.

What the heck are you talking about man?
Opposed to them?
Who or what is "them".

Let's see if I can figure out what you mean... If I opposed the coaches methods, but those methods worked would I still oppose those methods?

It would not matter because a sports team is not a democracy,it is a dictatorship... whatever the coach says goes and if you don't like it go to another team.

But if you are talking about Coach Obama... and if you are suggesting that socialism (his method) has EVER worked ANYWHERE on the planet, I would challenge you and/or Him on that assertion.

8:55 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

I know that a sport team and a demoracy aren't the same thing. I am just basing my
questions from your analogy about the sports team.

You said in your post that if your team is playing and their biggest rival is about to score, would I hope the opponent is successful or would i hope the oppoent fails.

What I am trying to say is that even though I do not agree with the methods of Obama or his administration thus far, I do not consider them the opponent.

I consider them to be the "coaches" of my team so even though I do not like the way they "coach" I do not wish failure on them because I still want my team to win.

11:17 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

ahhso,.. but in this scenario you are one of the owners of the team and part of everything you make goes to pay his check.

Do you sit in the back of the room and shut-up when you believe and have growing evidence to show that he is taking the team down the tubes or do you hope he succeeds in taking the team down the tubes... do you hope he (the coach) fails?

Or should we all just lean in and take one in the head for the team?

9:41 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

I think that Steve was just trying to take your analogy to the next level Red.

This is a good post because you are actually elaborating on why you want the administration to fail. BUT I still think that there is a problem with the semantics here. Had you or Limbaugh said I want any socialist policies to fail then that would be considered legitimate criticism of the administration. By simply saying, “I want them to fail” you fall into the realm of partisan mud slinging an lose credibility.

I always said that I wanted President Bush to succeed. Yes there were policies that I thought were wrong and that I wanted to fail, but I never wanted him to fail as a person or a President. People like Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Pat Robertson have all said that they want President Obama to succeed but the also stated that they wouldn’t put aside their values or principles in support of the President. In a way they are separating the man from the policy and in my opinion that is a great thing (and amazingly surprising in the case of Coulter).

You can want the man to do well while disagreeing with his policies. You can criticize him and pray for him all at the same time.

Let me give you another analogy. There are some members of the management team at my job that I cannot stand and frankly think are complete bumbling idiots. I cannot stand their ideas and hope that their policy ideas and management styles fall flat on their faces, but I wish no harm upon them. I’m sure this makes me sound crazy and hell I might be, but that is how I see it. I am cursed with this amazing ability to see things from multiple points of view, thus I can see the perspective of those I disagree with. This is a great help in communicating with others, but often makes it hard to get or stay pissed off at someone. My point is that I wish no one ill will, even when I completely disagree with their ideas. Or in another way of looking at it, emotionally I want them to succeed and logically I just don’t want them to get a pink slip (demotions are fine though ;-P).

Okay…now that I sound completely crazy I think that I shall get off the computer for today and take my daughter out to lunch.

11:37 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Dave- "Had you or Limbaugh said I want any socialist policies to fail then that would be considered legitimate criticism of the administration. By simply saying, “I want them to fail” you fall into the realm of partisan mud slinging an lose credibility."

Uhhh dave, you know I love you man.. but if you will take the time to read what Limbaugh originally said and has repeated over and over.. he did say that he wants Obama to fail because he opposes what Obama is doing.

If you look at my posts I want Obama to fail because If he succeeds everything I oppose will happen to America.

I want Obama to fail for good reasons which I have stated and continue to express on a regular basis.

As far as getting along with people you work with... that's another matter altogether dave.

I too share your ability to see things from multiple sides... that's how I know so much about liberals.

1:00 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

“I too share your ability to see things from multiple sides... that's how I know so much about liberals.”

LOL!!! Now that is funny. I’m talking about having a real ability to connect and empathize with people, nothing more. This isn’t about running around claiming that you understand how liberals think just because you used to be one back in the 60’s & 70’s (or was that 80’s…I’m not trying to insult you, I just cannot remember how old you are…I’m sorry). This type of rhetoric is just that, rhetoric.

My original point had to do with words, how they are used, and how they are perceived. This is not a new topic here Red and I shouldn’t be surprised that you either don’t get it or chose not to (or could be that you are trying to give me crap and push my buttons, but that would be giving myself too much credit :-P). Rush understands this and uses his words purposefully to generate reactions (at least the is my opinion based on interviews that I have heard and from listening to his show for over a decade). He is trying to cause controversy to stir up ratings. In many ways you do the same thing here on your blog. You talk crazy about liberals in hopes to generate more traffic to your site. It is a successful tactic (otherwise Ann Coulter wouldn’t be all over the place because that is ALL she does), but it is not productive and honestly it contributes to the dumbing down of the nation.

If you and Limbaugh cannot (or chose not to) understand the difference between saying “I hope Obama fails” and “I hope Obama’s policies fail” then I can’t help you. Yes it is a small difference in the structure of the sentence, but the difference in meaning speaks volumes.

And what was wrong with my work analogy? I thought that was a pretty good one. :o)

10:50 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

dave... I understand that when Limbaugh said he hoped Obama failed meant that he hoped Obama's policies fail because I heard (and saw the text) the original statement in it's entirety which included that fact... and have heard him repeat it several times... almost daily in fact.

You can read the text of past shows at his website.

Every conservative American or anyone who opposes socialism should "hope Obama fails".

As far as what I write... I assure you it represents what I truly truly believe and usually have data to support that belief. I do want it to be entertaining for others and I do like to poke at extreme liberal bloggers but much of it is in self defense too.

I think we all blog to entertain and inform others... as well as publish our views, yes?

11:59 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

"I think we all blog to entertain and inform others... as well as publish our views, yes?"

Sure, but you seem to use that as an excuse to be just down right mean and vindictive. Yes there are liberal bloggers who are equally as guilty and I have called at least a few of the out on it. You can't always hide behind the veil of "I'm being funny" and "I'm just defending myself" forever.

And as I have already told you about a million times, I listen to Rush and have heard him, in context, making these statements. He is being a polemic and just trying to cause controversy (which in and of itself is not a bad thing). He is continuing on his successful career of dumbing down discourse by turning every argument into “liberals are bad and conservatives are good.” It is simplistic. It is ignorant. And it is intellectually dishonest.

11:05 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Actually an independent study found that Limbaugh's audience is the most informed group (by a good margin) when compared to non-listeners and those who only get news and information from the media and or internet.

It's the news media that is dumbing down the discourse and the Democrat(ic) party who were dumbing down the discourse by trying to reduce George W Bush down to just being stupid and/or a liar.

You are wrong about Limbaugh. He makes people think. Either you disagree with what he says or you agree. None of us wait for Rush to tell us what to think... I wait to see if Rush agrees with me and usually he does.

Say what you will about Rush Limbaugh but he is good for America and good for politics for without people like him all we get is the biased news produced by Democrat party news media.

Journalism is dead. There is no control on media and it is biased to the point of no return in my and most Americans opinion. Well over 80% of so-called journalists are registered donating Democrats.

Without the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, Beck's etc. there is no check or balance on that media.

That would be very bad for America.

11:26 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

“It's the news media that is dumbing down the discourse and the Democrat(ic) party who were dumbing down the discourse by trying to reduce George W Bush down to just being stupid and/or a liar.”

The same exact thing was done to Bill Clinton for eight years. The GOP spent eight years making personal attacks on Clinton and reduced the discourse to shameful name calling. Pathetically, those on the left decided that it was their turn and did the same thing to Bush. They’re all acting like idiots because nothing that they did came to any good.

Rush does make you think and he and Beck and a few others are better than a lot of them out there, but he (Rush) has still made all of his arguments hinge on “conservatism is good and liberalism is bad” (people like Ann Coulter took it and ran it off the deep end). Beck’s not like that and neither is O’Rielly (Did I spell that right? I always mess up his name.), but they are not the norm.

You are right though…the media is out of hand.

11:38 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

One thing Dave... were those "personal attacks" on Clinton true or not?

Did Bill Clinton have an affair while President and lie to a Grand Jury and lie directly to the American people with a straight face or not?
"I did not have sex with that woman"... "what is.. is?" and then "I did not tell the truth".

No one can prove Bush lied because virtually everyone else believed the same thing Bush truly believed... that Saddam had WMD's.
What about everything ELSE they said about Bush? 8 straight years of non-stop personal attacks... horrible stuff and now conservatives are supposed to forget about all that and play nice?

From Limbaugh's view, liberals are bad.. bad for America and bad for the world and bad for the poor and bad for themselves and bad for us.

He does have a right to that opinion yes?

11:54 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

In fact I'm having trouble coming up with one good thing 'liberals' and socialists have EVER done.

Remember, Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican as was President Lincoln and it was not a Democrat who ended the Vietnam war... Democrats have the most 'former' KKK members in congress I could go on and on.

I could also go on and on about the good conservatives have done with no problem, but I won't bore ya'.

11:59 AM  
Blogger Dave said...

What has liberalism given the world? How about the works of John Locke, the idea of religious freedom (thank you Thomas Jefferson), The Declaration of Independence (again thank you Mr. Jefferson), the Constitution (thank you James Madison), labor safety laws, end of segregation…good enough for you?

Does Limbaugh have a right to his opinion? Of course he does, but that’s not the issue. The issue is how he frames his arguments, the tone he uses, and the tone he sets for others to emulate.

12:24 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

So you disagree with Rush on style not substance?

Which bring me to my next post... on Limbaugh.
see you at the top after it's done.

12:49 PM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

btw- Where do lefties come off claiming Jefferson was a liberal by today's definition?

12:54 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Since this question came up on this post over on my blog, I’ll just copy my response here as well.

Okay…a few things here.

First: Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson created the Republican Party, also at the time known as the Democratic-Republican Party, to counter Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party. Hamilton is who I would consider the father of conservatism in America and his party was the first conservative political party. The party that Madison and Jefferson created is still around to this day and is now known simply as the Democratic Party.

This is pretty simple and well known history Red and I’m a bit shocked that you would make this kind of error. The modern Republican Party, as Steve pointed out, was formed prior to the Civil War as an anti-slavery party (go GOP) and one could argue that Lincoln, the first GOP President, was a bit of a liberal himself. The Federalist’s fell apart after John Adams lost to Jefferson in 1800 and was eventually replaced with the Whig Party.

You can read all about the history of the Democratic Party here, here, here, here, and here.

Second: Thomas Jefferson as a liberal
Everything that Jefferson did (with the exception of his horrific racism and support of slavery) was liberal in nature. His support and belief of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are traditional liberal doctrine as laid out by John Locke. His firm belief in God, with his skepticism of organized religion and belief that religion and politics should be separated (“wall of separation” anyone?). Those are just two examples.

Third: Modern liberalism and the “LEFT”
You are correct Red that much of modern liberalism has been taken over by those who follow the teachings of Marx (i.e. the “LEFT”), but that is not true liberalism. Also I think that real liberals (i.e. the average folks) believe in the things I’ve outlined and not in the doctrines of Marx, socialism, or communism. Has much of the hierarchy of the organized liberals been infiltrated by these Marxists (for lack of a better term)? Yes, but the same can be said about the organizations on the right and extreme right-wingers. This is one of the many reasons why I have called for both sides to cast off their extremes and take back their movements and ideologies from the ideologues.


In response to your question "So you disagree with Rush on style not substance?" question, yes I do. Those who actually listen to Rush know that he is not a racist nor a hatemonger (corporate whore maybe), BUT it is hard to hear through the nonsense “us vs. them” rhetoric that he spews. I’ll respond more on your Rush post.

11:43 AM  
Blogger Red S Tater said...

Like I said, true "liberalism" in the 1776 sense is dead... like the "gay 20's" and rainbows simply being a rainbow.

12:15 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

I think that we can still take it back. I haven’t completely given up hope yert.

12:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home