PDA

View Full Version : Obama: Stop Listening to Rush Limbaugh




Dequeant
01-24-2009, 01:47 PM
Source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-quit-listening-rush-limbaugh-want-things/)


WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.


While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

http://i44.tinypic.com/21mt7wn.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTp_atr2G9E)

Reason
01-24-2009, 03:52 PM
Rush Limbaugh is a fucking idiot.

angelatc
01-24-2009, 04:17 PM
So is Obama though.

Bruno
01-24-2009, 04:28 PM
Stop listening to Rush or Obama will make you stop listening to Rush

forsmant
01-24-2009, 07:48 PM
I agree with Rush maybe 25% if the time. He is really egotistical and listening to him on my lunch break is entertaining. That is his job, entertainment, don't forget it. Just like Glenn Beck has found a niche audience and plays to their passions whether he shares those passions or not. It is good business to appeal to the emotions.

zach
01-24-2009, 08:13 PM
I don't know about Rush, but Obama sounds like an asshole.

Yeah, you won.. big fucking deal.

A. Havnes
01-24-2009, 08:50 PM
It doesn't really matter what anyone's opinion of Rush is (I don't like him), but the fact is, Obama is actually saying not to listen to someone!

Kalifornia
01-24-2009, 10:13 PM
Obama=douche
Rush=Turd sammich

Choose.

lynnf
01-25-2009, 07:10 AM
Source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-quit-listening-rush-limbaugh-want-things/)





http://i44.tinypic.com/21mt7wn.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTp_atr2G9E)


maybe we could work a trade here: we stop listening to Rush, and Obama stops listening to Ayers or whatever communists that he's listening to!

Lucille
01-25-2009, 07:55 AM
Limbaugh Responds to Obama [Byron York] (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=):


There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That's fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

..................................

Linked at Instapundit (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/): Rush To Judgment (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/01/rush-to-judgement.html)


And the Big Finish - why shouldn't Republicans listen to Rush? Consider the latest WaP/ABC poll with this buried gem:

19. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)?

The answer, it turns out, is that even in the current environment, post-Katrina and in the midst of the worst economy since the last bad economy (OK, 1982), 53% of the respondents plumped for "smaller government with fewer services", in contrast with 43% backing expanded government. Let's acknowledge a bit of momentum for the "Bigger Government" crowd: Small Government peaked at 63% in 1996, hit 62% in 2002 and has faded a bit; Ginormouser Government has swollen from 32% in 1996 all the way to 43% today. So Obama's huge government stimulus package combined with a Federal take-over of the health care industry may not fully embrace the majority opinion in this country. As Rush will no doubt point out.

jkr
01-25-2009, 05:51 PM
way ahead of you mr president(?)

Dequeant
01-25-2009, 10:51 PM
Rush is a medically addicted tool..........

But he is telling republicans that, effectively, anyone who shares a majority of his point of view will not be represented in this government. Period.

That's what I made this post for, because THAT is pretty fucked up.