Mark Haines is part of the group of socialists/fascists/Communists at CNBC (including Larry Kudlow et. al.). He is a co-anchor of one or more programs on CNBC, and recently was part of a CNBC "interview" (attack on) Rush Limbaugh. I can objectively prove, by deductive reasoning, that Mark Haines is a socialist (or an incompetent, leftist, political hack in the classic NBC mode--take your pick). Yes, I will use the Limbuagh "interview".
First, we need to be clear what Rush Limbaugh said about Barack "World" Obama. Limbaugh said that if President Obama pursued socialist policies, Limaugh hoped he "failed" (to successfully institute those policies, and turn the country socialist). That is all Limbaugh said (albeit probably knowing that the brain dead mainstream journalists would equate Obama with the country, as Limbaugh did not, and suggest that Limbaugh wanted the country to fail--exactly the opposite of what Limbaugh said).
Okay, Mark Haines contentiously asked Rush Limbaugh if his statement that he wanted President Obama to "fail" (in instituting socialism) was not "mean spirited". Haines went on to pursue this with further "mean spirited" questions.
Syllogism: Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted anyone trying to iimpose socialist policies on this country to fail--including President Obama, IF the President pursued socialist policies. Mark Haines made it clear that he wanted President Obama to succeed in imposing his policies, even (especially?) if they are socialist. Therefore, Mark Haines is a socialist. Impeccable deductive logic, if I do say so myself. (I got a "A" in "Logic", one of my undergraduate college courses).
"But", you (a fellow leftist political hack) sputter, "Haines did not mean that." Translation: He was going with the party line of the "networks" of NBC distorting what Limbaugh actually said. That "party line" was that Limbaugh wants Obama "to fail" to "save" the country. Limbaugh made absolutely clear that he was saying no such thing (in the original statement, in context). The "networks of NBC", and Haines, simply equate Obama "failing" with the country "failing"--an absurdity. In fact, President Clinton "failed" to get his socialist policies passed (like the health care proposal), and he was a very successful President (BECAUSE of the Republicans in the House preventing him form "succeeding" at his policies). Limbaugh has made it clear that he looks at President Obama the same way: The best way for Obama to SUCCEED as President is for his sociaist type policies (to the extent he pursues them) to FAIL. If Limbaugh's position is that the best way for Obama to succeed in "saving" the country is to adopt conservative policies. Failing that, the best way for Obama to "succeed" (in the sense of the word that equates Obama's success with that of the country) is for him to "fail" in instituting his socialist policies.
Yes, as I have stated before, Mark Haines and the rest of the lefitist ppolitical hacks are probably the most sanctimonous hypocrites to ever walk the Earth Did those people equate "success" by President Bush in enacting his policies with "success" for the country? ; Not on your life!!!!
Take your choice. Either Mark Haines is a socialist, or he is a hypocritical, incompetent, stupid leftist political hack who deliberately distorted what Limbaugh said. I vote for all of the above.