Limbaugh offers to debate Obama one-on-one

[pocketfullofshells]

You never attacked Bush about his drug use? I will look into ways for getting you a metal for your valor!


But you over looked two people attacking Rush about drug use but went right to me because I had the audacity to remind them of their messiah and his drug issues and you were called on it, but decided not to talk about that in your reply, but instead talk about your drinking experiences and how you never attacked Bush on his drug use. That doesn’t change the fact that you were a hypocritical.

get a clue...trying something, and having a problem....not the same thing.

Simple fact for you, Obama never had a drug problem.

Fact 2...Rush did...while he attacked people for addiction I should add.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

These leftists have to attack Limbaugh for his former drug addiction, because they can't refute him on the actual things he says - the idea that society does best when government remains smaller and out of the way, rather than expanding and taking over people's formerly-private responsibilities. Ideas that remain true whether Limbaugh takes pain medication or not.

I'm not surprised that the leftist fanatics are screaming about his weight, his former oxycontin use for back pain that led to an addiction he broke the law to feed, his looks etc. They are desperate to divert any discussion AWAY from the real issues, since they know they will lose every debate on them.

What a sad state the once-great Democrat party has fallen into.

thats true we dont have the time to refute 8 hours of his bull daily....actuly wait there are people who do that.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I'm sorry, but I do see a difference. One person simply decides to ignore the law, and go get themselves hooked on drugs for no reason. This to me, is a character flaw. He's openly thumbing his nose at the law. A sign of rebellion and idiocy. Might explain why he comes across like an idiot when the teleprompter fails.

Rush did not go out to try and find a drug, get hooked, and break laws. Rush had back surgery which left him in constant pain. The drugs were prescribed due to this pain. Further, he had been taking the drugs for a long time prior to getting hooked.

Now, I understand if you don't see the difference. That's your choice. I do. I know if I had chronic back pain, and had to take these highly addictive drugs for years, it's entire possible I'd get hooked too.

But I'll never run out and choose to walk down High St. flag a dealer and buy a bag of pot, or start growing it in my basement. Why? Cause I never intend to break the law.

So when Poppy boy acts like an elementary school kid, with some lame jab at Rush about getting hooked on a pain killer he needed because he was in chronic pain... yeah, I'm going to point out Obama on Cocain and ask "so what's his excuse?"

Of course, the answer is... He doesn't have one. And neither does Poppeye.

if we did not have anyone in office who had not tried drugs illegally...well kick the Bush and Clinton out as well then...and I guess most people I know can never run for office, nor can i....we all have character issues...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I think that the analogy is flawed. I think he supports the office of the President, he just wants "socialist" tendencies to fail, which I would wager most capitalist leaning people do.



I doubt he wants the economy to fail. He wants "socialism" to fail. If you saw Obama following more of the Republican mantra, you would not hear anything bad about him from Rush.

Is it political? Sure. Everything always is. Everything. I just find it flawed to say if you do not support a policy you feel will hurt the country even more, then you want the President to fail. You don't want him to fail, you want the country to get better, you just think the policy doesn't do it.

Please tell me how the economic policy of the white house can fail...and yet at the same time have the economy of the US not fail...

Just like I can not see how I could hope that Bush's Iraq Policy failed....without seeing the failur of Iraq itself.

if it works it works...suck it up and be wrong and accept that the outcome was good. if it fails you can say it failed and showed it did not work...you cant hope it fails, but still hope it works.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What a sad state the once-great Democrat party has fallen into.

yes , its very sad...what with the 30% approval or Republicans, Dems having power over senate congress and white house....its horrible.

 

[BigRob]

Please tell me how the economic policy of the white house can fail...and yet at the same time have the economy of the US not fail...

Just like I can not see how I could hope that Bush's Iraq Policy failed....without seeing the failur of Iraq itself.

if it works it works...suck it up and be wrong and accept that the outcome was good. if it fails you can say it failed and showed it did not work...you cant hope it fails, but still hope it works.

You can fundamentally disagree with a philosophy and hope it does not take hold.

Like I said, it is the same as supporting the troops but not the war. How can the war fail and the troops succeed? You correctly point out the flaw in the analogy. But it was Democrats who started that analogy during the war. If it was acceptable then, why is not not acceptable for Rush to use the same logic? Regardless of what you might think of it.

It would be like saying "to end crime we are going to put everyone in jail. You need to hope it works because crime is a bad thing. And if it does, then just suck up being in jail." No, you hope the idea, which is a bad idea, does not take effect.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You can fundamentally disagree with a philosophy and hope it does not take hold.

Like I said, it is the same as supporting the troops but not the war. How can the war fail and the troops succeed? You correctly point out the flaw in the analogy. But it was Democrats who started that analogy during the war. If it was acceptable then, why is not not acceptable for Rush to use the same logic? Regardless of what you might think of it.

It would be like saying "to end crime we are going to put everyone in jail. You need to hope it works because crime is a bad thing." No, you hope the idea, which is a bad idea, does not take effect.

becuse I did not support the idea of going to war....that said once we went to war, I supported doing what ever we could to win, and hoped we would. I hoped that my predictions would be wrong...and I think it was the wrong choice...but I hoped that in spite of the fact i did not agree, that it would in fact succeed.

Now show me how Rush plans to have the economic plan fail as he hopes...and yet at the same time , have the US economy do well and come back. You can fight against it all you want, but once its in place, if you realy care, you hope it works...even if it means in a few years saying I was wrong.

I would love to say that before the Iraq war started...I was wrong....its sad and regrettable that I cant say that. The uS if worse off because I was far more right then I was wrong on it.

 

[BigRob]

becuse I did not support the idea of going to war....that said once we went to war, I supported doing what ever we could to win, and hoped we would. I hoped that my predictions would be wrong...and I think it was the wrong choice...but I hoped that in spite of the fact i did not agree, that it would in fact succeed.

Now show me how Rush plans to have the economic plan fail as he hopes...and yet at the same time , have the US economy do well and come back. You can fight against it all you want, but once its in place, if you realy care, you hope it works...even if it means in a few years saying I was wrong.

I would love to say that before the Iraq war started...I was wrong....its sad and regrettable that I cant say that. The uS if worse off because I was far more right then I was wrong on it.

I don't agree we are worse off because of Iraq, but that is a different issue.

I am not trying to defend Rush, I am just saying the logic from both analogies is poor, and for people to defend one and attack the other is laughable in my view.

 

[Dr.Who]

Please tell me how the economic policy of the white house can fail...and yet at the same time have the economy of the US not fail...

Obama could say that socialized health care would save us all a lot of money.

Then the congressional budget office could officially state that socialized health care would cost us more money.

And just like people rejected Hillarycare and she utterly failed in implementing it People could reject Obamacare. He would have failed like she did but we the people would save money and the economy would be better off.

Congressional Budget Office:

"Working to achieve universal coverage through expanding government's role in health care will increase total costs and therefore either increase premiums or taxes, not reduce them. "

 

[Dr.Who]

Now show me how Rush plans to have the economic plan fail as he hopes...and yet at the same time , have the US economy do well and come back. You can fight against it all you want, but once its in place, if you realy care, you hope it works...even if it means in a few years saying I was wrong.

Obama's economic plan doubles the size of the deficit and spends billions of dollars that do not support the economy. Some of the expenses do support the economy.

If it succeeds the economy will improve and Obama will have more political capital to get more of what he wants. He has already moved us at least 7% closer to socialism (which is no laughing matter) and if the plan succeeds he could move us far more. That would be a tsunami of a catastrophe. Of course economists have long said the economy would improve even without his plan so even if his plan just sets us back a few months or a year he will still claim success.

If his plan fails the cost of the program will be a ding on the economy but we will still recover. What we will not have is a furtherance of socialism. In fact, we would be likely to have a withdrawal from socialism.

Our country will be better off if the Obama Socialistic Spending plan fails horrible and we even lose some jobs and wealth. We can recover from this far easier than we can recover from socialism. We are still feeling the ill effects of the last big socialistic push in 1935.

Better to cut out the cancer and feel the pain than to let it fester.

 

[top gun]

If fhey have such important things to do, than why is he and his goons on attack!

yeah. he's got too much to do. That's why america should be ticked. he's horsing around with rush and hannity.

He should not be worried about the repubs and just concentrate on trying to get something right. He hasn't so far, but, hey who knows.

"even the losers... get lucky somtimes"

It's really not hard at all to understand. Crackpot Lunatic Right Conservatives like Druggie Limbaugh and Shame Hannity try and spread their "little green men from outer space" lies and misinformation...

and the President's spokespeople cut them off at the knees for being obstructionist and counter productive to the real efforts being undertaken to help the American people get out from under this terrible Bush Recession!

I think it's pretty obvious President Obama, the President of The United States of America is working on multiple important things of which getting into Limbags mud pit would be of no value. You know what they say about dealing with pigs like Druggie Limbaugh...

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty and the pig will like it!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

He's not a problem solver... he's just an instigator.

He's like that fat loud mouthed neighbor that yells at his kids all the time in public....

I'm thinkin' this is more-fitting......​

"One answer is suggested by the so-called Big Lie theory of political propaganda, articulated most infamously by Adolf Hitler. Ordinary people "more readily fall victim to the big lie than the small lie," wrote Hitler, "since they themselves often tell small lies ... but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

In other words: Paradoxically, the more outrageous the claim, the more apt we are to assume there must be some truth to it. Just as some banks and insurance companies are apparently "too big to fail," some claims from those with political power seem to strike us as "too big to disbelieve." "That seems so outrageous it must be right," we tell ourselves. "The important people keep saying it -- they must know something I don't know."

....As in.........​

"According to Sanders, Rush's politics at the time were somewhat middle of the road. "Rush said that he though most people are incredibly gullible, and he felt that the key to radio programming was to reach that crowd, and that it would be really, really easy. He thought he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous it was, the more they would believe it."