- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 106,003
- Reaction score
- 97,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You say that only because you know that The Obama knows that the facts will crush him.
Yes, that must be it. You win.
You say that only because you know that The Obama knows that the facts will crush him.
So, you are critical of The Obama making hay about Rush being the leader of the GOP, etc.
TheHill.com - White House fires back at Rush Limbaugh
Of course I am. He should have never acknowledged that blow hard. Bad move, and not because Rush is such a bad ass. But because Rush doesn't deserve attention from the President of the United States.
I would have been willing to bet that GWB could have wasted any political commentator(even Jon Stewart) if he went on their show and just spilled the beans of what the situation really is out there.
No, no, no. There's a lot going on in there, sure, but then it's stuff Bush wouldn't have perhaps been allowed to comment on. right? so how could he have "won?"
Bush was a special case, because his administration, his 8 years in charge, was a complete bait-and-switch operation, in every area. talking about his presidency at all is/was a loser, for him.
No, no, no. There's a lot going on in there, sure, but then it's stuff Bush wouldn't have perhaps been allowed to comment on. right? so how could he have "won?"
Bush was a special case, because his administration, his 8 years in charge, was a complete bait-and-switch operation, in every area. talking about his presidency at all is/was a loser, for him.
Should Obama debate Rush?
Did you miss the part where I said going on these shows is a lose-lose situation, no matter who the President is? Obviously you did. And the reason I stated that was because they can't divulge that information, that would most likely give them the upper hand, when discussing issues with people who have little or no clue about what is actually going on. So it becomes a lose-lose situation, because if they divulge the information to "win the debate", they compromise things like national security and so on. Since they cannot divulge the information, they are in a kicking contest, with one leg cut off. The best they can do, is stay standing.
I have personal experience in this, not as a President obviously, but in regards to my military job, I was privy to information that cannot be divulged. So if I were to get into a debate with somebody, about the specifics of my job and they didn't have the same clearance(and need to know basis)that I had, they can basically say whatever they want and I have to goosestep over everything I say, so as not to divulge information that is not for general knowledge.
Obama had better not debate Rush on the economy when Obama thinks that P/E means profits to earnings ratio.
Heh.
30 more days like today and the DJIA will be at zero.
Obama = Nero?
Did you know that even Communist China has ZERO capital gains tax on its corporations.
Obama is anti-business.
How long can America last at this rate?
Obama had better not debate Rush on the economy when Obama thinks that P/E means profits to earnings ratio.
Heh.
30 more days like today and the DJIA will be at zero.
Obama = Nero?
Did you know that even Communist China has ZERO capital gains tax on its corporations.
Obama is anti-business.
How long can America last at this rate?
Amazing Kudlow and bhkad looking to the Communist:lol:
Rush is not worthy of a debate with Obama.
No offense, but Rush is an econ/finance idiot. I heard for years how "Policies under president Bush improved the economy." Now all the sudden, Rush is concerned about the "long run"?
Which is why it would probably be the highest grossing event in the history of debates. People are out of jobs, the country is being divided, and the event could probably gross over $250 million bucks if they marketed right in Vegas, with PPV.
The proceeds could go to provide residential real estate vouchers to soldiers returning from war, so they can purchase houses without high risk. You know, reward those who put in the "real" time while the economy was going to hell in a hand basket. This is not my idea though, Rick Santelli has been having a whole pool of them lately. It would help the housing market remove excess inventory.
*EDIT* Not the debate PPV event though, thats my idea:mrgreen:
Maybe not, but we.... The People.... DESERVE IT!
:rofl:rofl:rofl
Both are good ideas but Obama would never do it. He'd lose.
I'd like your opinion of this WSJ article by Rush which outlines his idea of a Bipartisan Stimulus Package.
Rush Limbaugh: My Bipartisan Stimulus - WSJ.com
Why is it funny?
Obama can not support his platform without using emotional red herrings.
He isn't above answering for his policies which effect everyone.
It's funny because of the way he posted it with all the emphasis. American's don't deserve to see our President engaging over rated hyper partisans like that tub of **** Limbaugh. American's deserve to see their President run this country and work towards fixing the problems we elected him to fix.
Debating Rush is a stupid idea and would be very un-Presidential. This is left to the likes of Al Franken or Chris Matthews.
It's funny because of the way he posted it with all the emphasis.
Look, American's don't deserve to see our President engaging over rated hyper partisans like that tub of **** Limbaugh. American's deserve to see their President run this country and work towards fixing the problems we elected him to fix.
Debating Rush is a stupid idea and would be very un-Presidential. This is left to the likes of Al Franken or Chris Matthews.
Here's a preview of what those matchups would look like...
YouTube - retard fight over pokemon show
It absolutely is relevant because of how he operates. The President has no business legitimizing a person like Limbaugh.Whether or not Rush is a fat tub of crap is irrelevant.
How many Presidents in recent history haven't done this kind of thing at one time or another? Yet you didn't see them getting in the mud with an entertainer the likes of Limbaugh or Olberman.Obama runs his mouth but wont defend his actions.
So, he's the President. This is nothing new. "I'm the decider." Remember that?He needs to put up or shut up. He has a nearly captive audience and there is no rebuttal to which Obama has to defend against.
Quite possibly true. As would have Bush. I hate to sound callous about this, but so what?His policies are unsupported by facts and he will loose any debate with a competent individual.
No, not really. Just like the conservatives and the GOP went on the warpath over Democrats questioning Bush's actions, nobody ever expected Bush to actually stand up and truthfully explain what he was doing let alone debate someone like Olberman. It's the same with any other President in history.Some American's don't want him to be doing what he is doing. He needs to explain himself.
And that might be true as well. But then again Obama was not elected to participate in pointless debate competitions. What would the result be? You already have your mind made up about Obama and his policies. All this would be is you getting the satisfaction of Rush up there bloviating and yammering at the President in the over the top, hyper partisan mannerism he does on his radio show. So turn on the radio and pretend he's debating Obama.Hell most anyone here could debate and win against him.