NationStates Jolt Archive

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/09/sheppard_fail_limbaugh/

Is it really wrong or even unpatriotic to want the president and/or his policies to fail? Hasn’t this likely been the case in this country since its very birth?
It is an indisputable, historical fact that many Colonists did not support independence from England, and were hoping with all their heart and all their soul that President George Washington would fail.

Less than a century later, likely half the nation hoped President Abraham Lincoln didn’t succeed in defeating the Confederacy.

The argument today is that wishing ill upon President Obama is unpatriotic because of the fragile condition of our economy — but it is a metaphysical certitude that Washington and Lincoln presided over a much weaker nation than what we are facing in 2009.
Sadly, this means the likely culprit is race and that Attorney General Eric Holder was right when he called us a nation of cowards just not for the reasons he believes.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/09/sheppard_fail_limbaugh/
This is a joke thread, right? It must be, since you just post a link but present no argument either for or against it. Isn't there some kind of rule or something about forum spam?

Also, you do realize, don't you, that in both the revolutionary and civil war periods, those who were hoping for the failure of the then presidents and their policies were also, in fact, hoping for the failure of the nation.

Those who did not support the revolution did not want the country to exist at all. They wanted Great Britain to take it back.

Many of those who did not support Lincoln's policies re the war and slavery were secessionists.

There is no reasonable way to argue that either of those groups were being patriotic to the US in declaring their wish for the president to fail. Therefore, you and the quoted blogger fail to undermine the argument that to wish the president to fail is unpatriotic.

Further, in the present instant, there are two perfectly good reasons to make that particular criticism:

1) It is a tit-for-tat exercise in throwing the hypocrisy of the rightwing into their faces, because of the way they denounced as traitors anyone who criticized Bush.

2) In the present instance, the president is attempting to save a collapsing economy. Wishing him to fail -- without presenting any alternative that one wishes would succeed instead -- is idiotic because failure without alternative success will be the failure of the nation. I.e., it is not a patriotic wish to make.

So...basically you're saying that Obama is doing the right thing?...

I'm not entierly certain what your point is here other than posted a bunch of exerpts from Fox.

Do you mean that the left is wrong to be annoyed at Limbaugh for his 'fail' comments? Or at you actually highlighting the right's hypocrisy given their reactions to even a minor criticism of Bush?

I personally never consider it unpatriotic to criticise a country - that's not going to stop me believing that hoping for failure of an economic plan and thus the misery of countless millions and further destitution of your country just to 'win' the ideological argument is both petty and cruel and portrays the far right in your country (or at least their most vocal proponents) for the selfish, small-minded bastards they are.

Hypocrisy is news?

News to me.

This is a joke thread, right? It must be, since you just post a link but present no argument either for or against it. Isn't there some kind of rule or something about forum spam?

Also, you do realize, don't you, that in both the revolutionary and civil war periods, those who were hoping for the failure of the then presidents and their policies were also, in fact, hoping for the failure of the nation.

Those who did not support the revolution did not want the country to exist at all. They wanted Great Britain to take it back.

Many of those who did not support Lincoln's policies re the war and slavery were secessionists.

There is no reasonable way to argue that either of those groups were being patriotic to the US in declaring their wish for the president to fail. Therefore, you and the quoted blogger fail to undermine the argument that to wish the president to fail is unpatriotic.

Further, in the present instant, there are two perfectly good reasons to make that particular criticism:

1) It is a tit-for-tat exercise in throwing the hypocrisy of the rightwing into their faces, because of the way they denounced as traitors anyone who criticized Bush.

2) In the present instance, the president is attempting to save a collapsing economy. Wishing him to fail -- without presenting any alternative that one wishes would succeed instead -- is idiotic because failure without alternative success will be the failure of the nation. I.e., it is not a patriotic wish to make.



This ^

Do you mean that the left is wrong to be annoyed at Limbaugh for his 'fail' comments? Or at you actually highlighting the right's hypocrisy given their reactions to even a minor criticism of Bush?
Given its a poorly written and fallacious article, you decide.

Given its a poorly written and fallacious article, you decide.

This sort of personal commentary on the article should, generally, accompany the linked article in your OP. Just as a general rule for making threads on these sorts of topics.

The thing is, in my personal opinion, is that it's not unpatriotic to wish a president to fail. If you believe, if you TRULY believe that communism is a bad ideology, and Obama is actively trying to instill a communist regime....well, you're an idiot. But more than that, if you think something is bad for this country, and you think a president is trying to do that very same thing, it's not unpatriotic to wish him to fail, since, you are, in essence hoping for him to fail in harming the country.

That seems to be the essence of patriotism, to me. If people believe Obama's position will harm america, it's not unpatriotic to wish him to fail, just the same as I do not believe myself unpatriotic for wishing Bush's efforts to strip our constitution of its most cherished liberties, engage us in meaningless war, and engage in failed "starve the beast" policies had failed.

I believed Bush would be bad for the country, and hoped he'd fail in his endeavors to harm it. I will not denounce as traitors those who say the same about Obama.

I will denounce, as hypocrits, fools like Rush who were the very same people who argued that any such statement was treason and unpatriotic dissent. The argument went from "wishing the president to fail is unpatriotic" to "it's ok if the president does bad things". It's rank hypocrisy, and I sadly expect no less. Pure intellectual dishonesty to try and justify doing the very thing you criticized others of doing.

More to point, I also denounce bullshit crystal ball gazing conclusions such as "if it were McCain, we wouldn't be criticized for calling him out, therefore it's because he's black!"

If it were McCain in power doing the exact same thing, you'd be no more or less criticized for your hypocrisy. The only difference is, there wouldn't be any calls for McCain to fail from Rush and co., because he's a republican.

It is an indisputable, historical fact that many Colonists did not support independence from England, and were hoping with all their heart and all their soul that President George Washington would fail.

wait, what?

I suppose it depends on what they "hope he fails" at. I mean, the way I took it, is "I hope he fails" at saving the economy. And, yeah, I think that is a pretty unpatriotic attitude to take. Worse, it's wishing for the misery of millions just for the sake of "winning."

wait, what?

What, don't you think that people who want the United States to not exist are great examples of patriotic Americans?

What, don't you think that people who want the United States to not exist are great examples of patriotic Americans?

more like wondering how president washington was fighting for independence

more like wondering how president washington was fighting for independence

It's Fox. They're allergic to facts.

more like wondering how president washington was fighting for independence

Well, after the revolution, I imagine that ex-loyalists would have wanted President Washington to fail so that Britain could sweep back in and reclaim the colonies.

Or maybe I'm giving this guy too much credit.

Well, after the revolution, I imagine that ex-loyalists would have wanted President Washington to fail so that Britain could sweep back in and reclaim the colonies.

Or maybe I'm giving this guy too much credit.

i vote the latter. the revolution had been over for seven years before washington got to be president, and most of the hardcore loyalists had already moved to canada (seriously, threatening to move to canada is one of our country's oldest traditions). hell, some of them had moved back already.

i vote the latter. the revolution had been over for seven years before washington got to be president, and most of the hardcore loyalists had already moved to canada (seriously, threatening to move to canada is one of our country's oldest traditions). hell, some of them had moved back already.

Well, yeah, but underestimating the amount of time between the end of the Revolution and the start of Washington's presidency seems less stupid to me than believing that Washington was president during the Revolution.

But then, this is Fox News, so perhaps they really are that dumb.

This sort of personal commentary on the article should, generally, accompany the linked article in your OP. Just as a general rule for making threads on these sorts of topics.

I prefer to just throw these things out there, without my opinion attached.

You know what Samuel Johnson said about patriotism... last refuge of scoundrels.