• 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!

Should Obama debate Rush?

Should The Obama debate Rush? Will he?

  • He should; He will

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He should not; He will

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    55
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.




correct.gif
 
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.

Much like how Obama is turning out already.
 
Can any of you who want a debate provide a single precedent?
 
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.

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.
 
Should Obama debate Rush?

No, absolutely not. The President should not indulge the whims and desires of anyone.
 
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.

my bad. you had said "if he had just spilled the beans." and he couldn't have. now I know what you meant. still, you have more faith in Bush than I. much of the time he just seemed confused. when asked about one thing, he would talk about another. no one like that "wins" any debate, in my view.
 
Rush is a pathetic bully and nothing else. You don't deal with a bully by debating them. You stand up to them. I am so glad to finally see this happening. We only have to look at Al Gore and John Kerry to see the results of taking the high ground and ignoring the idiots.

What I truly don't understand is how Rush and his ilk can say that they want the president to fail but not 6 months ago they were saying that anyone who was against the war in Iraq was against the troop and un-American. In their "minds?" it is not OK to question the need for a war against a country that did not attack us but it is OK to want the president's policies to fail resulting in an economic disaster for our country. I don't understand how such conflicting thought can exist in the same "mind" without their heads exploding. I originally thought Rush was just stupid, but he is showing such an increased level of stupidity that I don't know how he functions in society. If doesn't have enough brain power to see his own hypocrisy, how does he have enough brain power to dress himself?

So no, the President of the United States should not take time out of trying to solve the huge problems left/caused by the previous administration to debate the likes of Rush Limbaugh. I would be really interested if Rush would debate the president, or anyone, in a true debate. I doubt he would be willing to debate anyone in a venue where he did not have complete control. He wouldn't begin to know what to do if he couldn't cut someone off when they started gaining ground.
 
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?

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:
 
Last edited:
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. :cool:
 
A lot of people give to much intellectual credit to Obama in my opinion.

I'm personally tired of presidents and other high level politicians being untouchable.

The people need to see what these politicians are really like and how ignorant they are.

I'd like to see Herman Cain debate Obama. He would wipe the floor with the President.

Herman Cain: T*H*E New Voice
 
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:

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
 
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

The thing i do not like about that article is that Rush is about 2 years too late in his plea for tax relief. Here is my problem with those who are ascribing to tax holidays: Its far too late, there are already trillions of dollars of liabilities to the taxpayer, of which future deficit financing is reactive to. Spending is not going to be cut, therefore taxation is the only way to ensure future investment from foreign and domestic investors.

As much as i would like spending to be halted, that ship has sunk. I believe the reason our stimulus package is lacking is due to financial restraint, where the Dems are pushing there desired spending now, and HOPEFULLY they will enact super infrastructure stimulus, heavily laden in educational projects.

Once fears are averted can interest rates and yields be allowed to rise. Then the private investor will begin to emerge once again.

Which is a shame, because a great deal of crowding out will occur. A clear cut solution to this cluster**** does not exist.
 
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.

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
 
Last edited:
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.

Whether or not Rush is a fat tub of crap is irrelevant.

Obama runs his mouth but wont defend his actions.

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.

His policies are unsupported by facts and he will loose any debate with a competent individual.

Some American's don't want him to be doing what he is doing. He needs to explain himself.

Hell most anyone here could debate and win against him.
 
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

Limbaugh hopes that Socialism fails.

How about you?
 
Whether or not Rush is a fat tub of crap is irrelevant.
It absolutely is relevant because of how he operates. The President has no business legitimizing a person like Limbaugh.

Obama runs his mouth but wont defend his actions.
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.

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.
So, he's the President. This is nothing new. "I'm the decider." Remember that?

His policies are unsupported by facts and he will loose any debate with a competent individual.
Quite possibly true. As would have Bush. I hate to sound callous about this, but so what?

Some American's don't want him to be doing what he is doing. He needs to explain himself.
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.

He was elected by the people to do a job. He's going to do it. He might fail, he might not. He wouldn't be the first to muck it up. If Americans are dissatisfied they'll fire him in 2012.

Hell most anyone here could debate and win against him.
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.

The debating was done before the election and the people proclaimed who they thought the better man was.

If Limbaugh is seriously wanting to debate Obama, he needs to start preparing for the 2012 primaries.
 
Back
Top Bottom