• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House fires back at Rush Limbaugh

Bush said he was a "compassionate conservative. He lied.
Bush said he would fight for the environment. He lied
Bush said he would not engage in military adventurism or nation building. He lied.

Now list for me how Obama has violated his campaign promises.

BINGO!
Slap the Gold Star on Johnny's forehead for the whole class to see.

Nation building. He did proclaim that during the first run. Post 911 the landscape changed. It was a rational change to events on the ground.

Bush reacted to being attacked... Democrats make claims of tax cuts and then first thing in office tell us... ugh... me... president... me say no tax... but, but, but... ugh... I not know we have big problem... no tax cut... tax increase. Sorry... Trust me.
 
My question is...should they be doing something productive for the country now that they are in power rather than still running a dirty campaign after supposedly winning so big?

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.


So when reading this one has to ask why they would think this is a good strategy. Perhaps the reason they need to continue having a boogey man is to deflect attention to the rabid out of control criminally negligent way they are passing pork filled legislation that will do nothing to "stimulate" economic growth?

After all, they can’t keep kicking Bush around, he isn’t President any more.

The new talking point as expressed today by President Barrack Hussein Obama is this; they inherited a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit.

Now this specious remark may have legs if Obama had come from a State or some other obscure position before becoming President. But unfortunately for him, he cannot run from the deficits because as a senator he VOTED for every package that caused the deficit to become the largest deficit in US history.
 
If you think that the Republicans of the last 8 years were "liberal", then you are so delusional that one could probably get a committal order on you.

I engage your argument and you begin with the personal attacks.

Typical Liberal bull****.

Liberals are Pro-Environment, Republicans of the last 8 years have certainly not been.

"Pro-Environment" means Al'Gors toughly debunked argument.

The environmental movement is a surrogate argument to increase the size of government.

Liberals are Pro-Choice, Republicans of the last 8 years have certainly not been.

Yes they have.

They keep trying to pass legislation which condones abortion so long as some trivial requirement is met, like a useless ultrasound or a consultation the day before. Those are pro-choice laws.

Liberals are for a strict Separation of Church and State, Republicans of the last 8 years are practically theocrats.

Liberals are for the eradication of any religious icon in government, and that is NOT what the first amendment is about. Even the right wing SCOTUS recently decided that the government inclusion of a mere religious symbol was government endorsing that symbol.

Liberals are for progressive taxation, Republicans of the last 8 years have been for a flattening of the tax structure and shifting the tax burden from investors to labor.

It's imposable to claim that you support the laborer when you take away that laborer's job by over taxing his employer.

Liberals are for Universal Healthcare, Republicans are not.

Republicans increased funding to food stamps, unemployment and other benefits. Bush even unlocked the second part of the stimulus before Obama took office so that Obama could get started on his socialized healthcare.

I can go on.

You haven't even started. You have nothing.

Just because Republicans outspend Democrats does not mean they are liberal. It just means the crap they want: Wars, $2000 toliet seats from Defense Contractors, are really expensive.

Big government spending is a liberal trait. It is not a conservative trait. It doesn't matter that republicans want to over spend on X while Democrats want to over spend on Y; **It's still overspending either way**.

Its beyond delusional to think that Americans want a hard core conservative and if they don't get it they go out and vote for a liberal.

We'll find out in 2010, won't we :cool:
 
Yes. The clear winner in all of this is Rush. Undeniably.

Just look at this monster thread.

I wonder if any Democrats participating in this discussion understand what Rush meant when he said he wants Obama to fail?

Or if they suffer from a disease that deprives them of exhibiting reading comprehension or destroys that ability in totality?

Rush is toasting Obama and his goons today. Being anointed by the Goonies in the Obama administration... Rush has offered to debate Obama... He would fund the cost. No taxpayer cash. As the leader, and in bipartisan spirit, they should meet and debate for the good of the country.

LOL...
 
Last edited:
Well, he just reneged on his offer to debate ANY of the President's men. He now says the offer stands for ONLY the President, "not a flunkie."
 
Just look at this monster thread.

I wonder if any Democrats participating in this discussion understand what Rush meant when he said he wants Obama to fail?
Sure they do.
But, they cannot allow legitimate criticism to pass unchallenged.
So, rather than defend the policy or attack the criticism, they attack the person that MADE the criticism.

IOW, they're trying to d to Rush like they did to Joe the Plumber.

Difference is, Rush can fight back.
 
BINGO!
Slap the Gold Star on Johnny's forehead for the whole class to see.

Nation building. He did proclaim that during the first run. Post 911 the landscape changed. It was a rational change to events on the ground.

Bush reacted to being attacked... Democrats make claims of tax cuts and then first thing in office tell us... ugh... me... president... me say no tax... but, but, but... ugh... I not know we have big problem... no tax cut... tax increase. Sorry... Trust me.

Bush's cabinet had a meeting in January 2001, agreeing to move against Iraq. If you want to rewrite history, you might have more credibility acting less juvenile.
 
Bush's cabinet had a meeting in January 2001, agreeing to move against Iraq. If you want to rewrite history, you might have more credibility acting less juvenile.




Link? You like to throw things out with no proof, then when confronted you run.
 
Bush's cabinet had a meeting in January 2001, agreeing to move against Iraq. If you want to rewrite history, you might have more credibility acting less juvenile.

That is fine.
There is nothing wrong with planning.
In this case it was prescient to start there.

They foresaw a hot spot and decided to plan.

Nobody did this with Afghanistan. Osama.
Nobody in any Intel agency.

We did have Gorellick forge a Wall between our intel services which made "connecting the dots" more than difficult.

So give credit where due.
Bush was ahead of the curve.

Before you get too excited, Bush would have had to convince Congress of his war plans. Would they have expended the Capital to do this? Perhaps. If so much later in their first term.

911 had Dems acting consistent with their rhetoric when The Clintons were running the show. The actually pressed for and got a second meaningless vote in support.

That the votes were purely political and their Clinton rhetoric pure political posturing... reveals a group of individuals willing to do anything to gain power.

A huge contrast to Bush.

Bush campaigned on a set of clear ideas twice.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom