Rush Limbaugh... slightly confused? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

notoldschool · 03-02-2009, 06:48 PM

Rush is a big fat pig wind bag and only the lowest part of the gene pool understands what he is saying.

pocketkangaroo · 03-02-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

lets take some time to understand your view point

When Bush, on the heels of a massive attack against the nation in the heart of New York City talks about the threats and the risks and the changes that need to happen - he's just fear mongering and trying to scare people to push an agenda?

When Obama stands up and does absolutely nothing but talk about how bad the economy is, how bad its going to get and how there is just no time to discuss the biggest spending bill in the history of the world because there's just no time and the cost of losing one second debating it is just too great... he's just doing what needs to be done?

Repeat after me:

"My name is StuartD, i'm very liberal. That's not a bad thing, it just means that my personal political views are biased towards one side and means that i can't treat any political issue fairly.. so don't expect a well thought out, fair, insightful or well reasoned discussion on my part"

there.. now you're free and on the road to becoming a rational human being.

Sort of revisionist history there. The country supported Bush after the attacks. His approval rating was nearly 90% when the Afghanistan war started and over 60% when the Iraq war started. He was given the benefit of the doubt. The public turned on him when they realized that Iraq was never a threat and the was was completely pointless.

If in a couple years we look back and see that there was nothing to be worried about, people have every right to call Obama a fearmongerer and whatever else. But to act as though the public didn't give Bush the benefit of the doubt is revisionist history.

saucygirl · 03-02-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...pac/index.html

Limbaugh used his self-described "first national address," which ran more than an hour longer than his allotted 20 minutes, to accuse President Obama of inspiring fear in Americans in order to push a liberal agenda of "big government."

"He wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day, because that clears the decks for President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers, which are abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated. Doesn't matter. They'll have control of it when it's all over. And that's what they want," Limbaugh said.

"They see these inequalities, these inequities that capitalism produces. How do they try to fix it? Do they try to elevate those at the bottom? No, they try to tear down the people at the top."

What a farce. The last president I remember inspiring fear in people never talked about anything BUT the 'war on terra'!

Rush needs to just get back on abusing prescription drugs and STFU! He's a fat douchebag but if the idiotic republicans want to make him their defacto leader then more power to them. They have become a circus-like party. Last week it was Bobby "the Exorcist" Jindal that came off sounding like Kenneth the page. What a joke.

Pleasurepays · 03-02-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Sort of revisionist history there. The country supported Bush after the attacks. His approval rating was nearly 90% when the Afghanistan war started and over 60% when the Iraq war started. He was given the benefit of the doubt. The public turned on him when they realized that Iraq was never a threat and the was was completely pointless.

If in a couple years we look back and see that there was nothing to be worried about, people have every right to call Obama a fearmongerer and whatever else. But to act as though the public didn't give Bush the benefit of the doubt is revisionist history.

FACT... Bush used the rhetoric that if we don't do something right now, more attacks will come, we have no time, we need to make drastic changes etc etc etc - forget afghanistan then... think about The Patriot Act.

FACT... Obama used the same scare tactics and rhetoric saying we have no time to even so much as read or debate the planets largest spending bill ever because they economy is on the verge of going into an "irreversible" recession

simple point - two presidents using the same scare tactics to push through an agenda. thats all. you can argue the same points for either side. people refuse to admit or accept it because at the end of the day, politics is all about "us against them" and the "us" and "them" are just two sides of the same coin.

Pleasurepays · 03-02-2009, 07:35 PM

it's totally baffling that people think that voting on the worlds largest spending bill ever without debating or even so much as reading it is ok.

if you were liberal and it was a conservative president you would be throwing a fit about the exact same thing and crying about how totally insane and irresponsible it is.

pocketkangaroo · 03-02-2009, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

FACT... Bush used the rhetoric that if we don't do something right now, more attacks will come, we have no time, we need to make drastic changes etc etc etc - forget afghanistan then... think about The Patriot Act.

FACT... Obama used the same scare tactics and rhetoric saying we have no time to even so much as read or debate the planets largest spending bill ever because they economy is on the verge of going into an "irreversible" recession

simple point - two presidents using the same scare tactics to push through an agenda. thats all. you can argue the same points for either side. people refuse to admit or accept it because at the end of the day, politics is all about "us against them" and the "us" and "them" are just two sides of the same coin.

That's fine, I was just taking exception to the comment that everyone bashed Bush when he was doing this stuff. The wars and the Patriot Act were put through when Bush had a lot of support. I think the big difference at this moment is that Bush ended up lying about his dire rhetoric (particularly with Iraq). It's yet to be seen yet if Obama is lying about how bad the economy is and how bad it needs his plans. We'll find out in the coming years and judge him the same way we judged Bush.

StuartD · 03-02-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

if you were liberal and it was a conservative president you would be throwing a fit about the exact same thing and crying about how totally insane and irresponsible it is.

It happened just a few months prior. Remember the $750b bailout that went to company executives to throw lavish parties all week-end?

You're all upset that we are upset with Bush for pulling these stunts and not Obama. We're upset that Rush (and you even) are upset with Obama for pulling these stunts and not Bush.

You're trying to agree with everyone by arguing with them. Seriously. Politics is a tough topic to have a normal enough conversation about without you confusing the matter this much.

03-02-2009, 06:48 PM	#51
notoldschool Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 5,687	Rush is a big fat pig wind bag and only the lowest part of the gene pool understands what he is saying. __________________ No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture. -- Learned Hand http://www.bjpenn.com

03-02-2009, 07:35 PM	#55
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	it's totally baffling that people think that voting on the worlds largest spending bill ever without debating or even so much as reading it is ok. if you were liberal and it was a conservative president you would be throwing a fit about the exact same thing and crying about how totally insane and irresponsible it is.