• 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
Limbaugh hopes that Socialism fails.

How about you?

You see, i do not care about what socialist's do. From what i know, there are several socialist communities, the first one in the US was only 30 miles from me, and they have never bothered me at all.

If we did not bail out the banks (blanket their balance sheets) in October, there would most likely been 15% unemployment instantly. Paychecks are for the most part, credit structured, as firms do not want to sell assets to make payroll. It is/was simply more viable to to make 5% investing your profits, and paying no more than 3% on interest, allowing your payroll to be financed during periods when revenue falls short due to late invoice receipts.

Wait, that means we are all socialists:mrgreen: I don't care what i do!
 
It absolutely is relevant because of how he operates. The President has no business legitimizing a person like Limbaugh.

It makes no difference. If he is such an illegitimate person then he could easily offer a rebuttal with facts.

I will agree though that Rush is boorish and kind of annoying.

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 himself has said that this recession is nothing we have seen since the depression.

It doesn't matter if we have done this before. I want accountability since I am marginalized at the ballot box by ignorant fools.

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

Bush sucked ass. In fact the last 100 plus years of presidents have sucked ass.

It doesn't make it ok.

Quite possibly true. As would have Bush. I hate to sound callous about this, but so what?

So if he can't defend his policies, why is he even in office?

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.

Democrats had an absolute right to demand an explanation.

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.

He was elected by some people to do the job.

He also has limits to his job which he readily ignores.

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.

It's not pointless. If he can't use facts to defend his idea's and policies then why should anyone support him any longer?

Why should we even allow him to continue being president if he is unqualified?

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

The election debates are documented farces. That is not a debate in any real way.

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

Anyone can question the president. Rush has a significant amount of supporters that back him.

He deserves to be answered in some substantial way.

That is irrespective of whether I like him or not.
 
It makes no difference. If he is such an illegitimate person then he could easily offer a rebuttal with facts.

I will agree though that Rush is boorish and kind of annoying.
That's not the point. The point is that Obama doesn't need to do this. Nothing will be accomplished. No problem in our nation will be fixed. In fact, it will detract from his job of running this country. We have enough partisan divisiveness as it is, this is pointless.

Obama himself has said that this recession is nothing we have seen since the depression.

It doesn't matter if we have done this before. I want accountability since I am marginalized at the ballot box by ignorant fools.
A debate with Rush Limbaugh would not give you any level of accountability. And your opinion of your fellow American voters is duly noted. It sucks to feel marginalized, but that's what happens to the losing team.

Bush sucked ass. In fact the last 100 plus years of presidents have sucked ass.

It doesn't make it ok.
I never said it made anything okay. It's the reality. There is no precedent for this kind of nonsense. Again, this debate would accomplish absolutely nothing.


So if he can't defend his policies, why is he even in office?
Well, he's in office because the American people put him there. The majority had enough faith in his abilities to elect him. And you don't know he can't defend them.

Democrats had an absolute right to demand an explanation.
And they did.

He was elected by some people to do the job.
Point taken.

He also has limits to his job which he readily ignores.
That's your opinion.

It's not pointless. If he can't use facts to defend his idea's and policies then why should anyone support him any longer?
It absolutely is pointless. He should be judged on his job performance, not his ability to exchange barbs with a hyper partisan wind bag. The people don't have to support him after he's elected for any reason. But the fact is, he's already elected. If he mucks this up, he will lose support. That's how it works.

Why should we even allow him to continue being president if he is unqualified?
Maybe you should go ahead and start a petition for impeachment or something. I don't know what to tell you. This struggle belongs to you and those who share your opinion.

The election debates are documented farces. That is not a debate in any real way.
Well, that's where the Presidential debating is done. I understand you are frustrated. I just can't get behind your belief that this is even remotely productive to any measurable degree.

Anyone can question the president. Rush has a significant amount of supporters that back him.
I agree. Our nation has questioned every President since the beginning. Rush's fan base is irrelevant on this issue because there is no Constitutional right that guarantees anyone an hour to directly debate the President of the United States.

He deserves to be answered in some substantial way.
Sure, and each and every one of us deserve to have the President explain himself to us until we are satisfied. But reality predicates that this is simply not going to happen no matter how badly we think it should.
 
That's not the point. The point is that Obama doesn't need to do this. Nothing will be accomplished. No problem in our nation will be fixed. In fact, it will detract from his job of running this country. We have enough partisan divisiveness as it is, this is pointless.

If a better idea is presented during a debate then it is not pointless.

A debate with Rush Limbaugh would not give you any level of accountability. And your opinion of your fellow American voters is duly noted. It sucks to feel marginalized, but that's what happens to the losing team.

My fellow Americans can elected the same tow parties for over 100 hundred years expecting different results.

That is what a fool does.

I never said it made anything okay. It's the reality. There is no precedent for this kind of nonsense. Again, this debate would accomplish absolutely nothing.

A precedent doesn't need to be made. It is holding elected representative accountable.

Well, he's in office because the American people put him there. The majority had enough faith in his abilities to elect him. And you don't know he can't defend them.

I surely do know for the most part a lot of his idea's are defenseless based on objective logic.

It absolutely is pointless. He should be judged on his job performance, not his ability to exchange barbs with a hyper partisan wind bag. The people don't have to support him after he's elected for any reason. But the fact is, he's already elected. If he mucks this up, he will lose support. That's how it works.

It is not exchanging barbs it is debating which idea is superior based on objective facts and logic.

If his idea's fail it will cost me and my kids a lot of money and labor.
Wasting my resources is not something I welcome.

Maybe you should go ahead and start a petition for impeachment or something. I don't know what to tell you. This struggle belongs to you and those who share your opinion.

The struggle belongs to every person who wants an accountable government.
It seems your willing to roll over and take it because that is what has happened in the past.

Well, that's where the Presidential debating is done. I understand you are frustrated. I just can't get behind your belief that this is even remotely productive to any measurable degree.

It is not where it is done but how it is done.

It is controlled by the candidates to a huge degree and any viable third party is restricted from debating so that democrats and republicans can consolidate power.

I agree. Our nation has questioned every President since the beginning. Rush's fan base is irrelevant on this issue because there is no Constitutional right that guarantees anyone an hour to directly debate the President of the United States.

You are right, but we can redress our grievances. Rush has a lot of supporters and can be considered a representative of some large group of people.

Sure, and each and every one of us deserve to have the President explain himself to us until we are satisfied. But reality predicates that this is simply not going to happen no matter how badly we think it should.

Not each and everyone but groups with a large support base do have the option of redressing our grievances.
 
Hairy, thank you for the interaction. But we aren't getting anywhere. We simply don't see eye to eye on this, and that's okay. I'll leave you to it.

Good night.

:2wave:
 
Still waiting for an example of a sitting president accepting a debate with a private citizen. If it isn't done, then why suggest it should be done?
 
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.


This has always been the case with presidents. Bush took us into a war that many Americans didn't want. He didn't debate anyone about it. At least President Obama is talking to the public and keeping us informed. Obama has earned his position as president through a LONG process. He should not debate the likes of Limbaugh anymore that Bush should have debated Michael Moore. He shouldn't engage in this if for no other reason than he should be using his time better.
 
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.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.

Rush Limbaugh: My Bipartisan Stimulus - WSJ.com

Do you believe America really favors both ideas?

Do you favor both?
 
Do you believe America really favors both ideas?

Do you favor both?

We are massivily overdue for an infrastructure overhaul. With the stock level of Federal debt, combined with the massive appropriations towards bailouts, there is really no way to move forward without increasing revenue.

We just cannot lower taxes and hope everything goes away in time. Tax incentives need to be quasi-permanent to have any effect, unless combined with the type of spending we cannot afford. The banking system is insolvent, and once the current liquidity blanket is removed, there are going to be quite a few naked banks, ala Citi and BoA. This is not just a local issue, this phenomena shall proceed to creep throughout the world. Europe, US and Japan are the current zombie banking systems.

A great deal of more governmental/global coordination is still in the works.

Personally, i say let em all fall. But that is just not realistic, so the best case scenario is to hope for higher prices (inflation to Keynesians). At this point, massive spending is needed in public/private bid co-ops. I expect another stimulus by the end of the year.
 
Last edited:
We are massivily overdue for an infrastructure overhaul. With the stock level of Federal debt, combined with the massive appropriations towards bailouts, there is really no way to move forward without increasing revenue.

We just cannot lower taxes and hope everything goes away in time. Tax incentives need to be quasi-permanent to have any effect, unless combined with the type of spending we cannot afford. The banking system is insolvent, and once the current liquidity blanket is removed, there are going to be quite a few naked banks, ala Citi and BoA. This is not just a local issue, this phenomena shall proceed to creep throughout the world. Europe, US and Japan are the current zombie banking systems.

A great deal of more governmental/global coordination is still in the works.

Personally, i say let em all fall. But that is just not realistic, so the best case scenario is to hope for higher prices (inflation to Keynesians). At this point, massive spending is needed in public/private bid co-ops. I expect another stimulus by the end of the year.

Yesterday the DJ dropped 250 points. How many more days like this can America withstand?

Wouldn't cutting capital gains taxes immediately effect Wall Street?
 
Yesterday the DJ dropped 250 points. How many more days like this can America withstand?

Wouldn't cutting capital gains taxes immediately effect Wall Street?

Maybe a bear rally, but nothing significant. Reason be, i highly doubt it would be permanent. The problem is systemic, and a clear cut solution is off the table. There is $8 trillion (US alone) in toxic assets lagging down the banks. Once the bad debt is dealt with, Wall Street will boom.
 
perhaps no one cares about your strawman, just sayin. :lol:

He didn't build a strawman. He originally asked for an example of a sitting President debating a citizen. Now he's reminding us that nobody has provided an example. The point here being there is no precedent.

Can any of you who want a debate provide a single precedent?
Straw Man.
Reasoning

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg
 
Last edited:
Still waiting for an example of a sitting president accepting a debate with a private citizen. If it isn't done, then why suggest it should be done?

Come, come.
The answer is simple.
Let's change some characters around shall we?

First let's set the stage:

Bush has in his first month singled out four individuals; most folks in the press support Bush, but four are outspoken.

Karl Rove has been colluding with several members of the media to attack one of the four especially, and use tainted bait.
They have as a tactic been making the claim he is the head of the party.

Bush claims he is bipartisan and willing to listen to all sides during this challenging time.

End

Now, if this is the scenario, why not... for the good of the country when Bush played all these notes?

That it would set precedent doesn't matter.
He's the president and for the good of the nation?
The world?

I thought libs loved setting precedent?
 
Come, come.
The answer is simple.
Let's change some characters around shall we?

First let's set the stage:

Bush has in his first month singled out four individuals; most folks in the press support Bush, but four are outspoken.

Karl Rove has been colluding with several members of the media to attack one of the four especially, and use tainted bait.
They have as a tactic been making the claim he is the head of the party.

Bush claims he is bipartisan and willing to listen to all sides during this challenging time.

End

Now, if this is the scenario, why not... for the good of the country when Bush played all these notes?

That it would set precedent doesn't matter.
He's the president and for the good of the nation?
The world?

I thought libs loved setting precedent?

What would be accomplished? There are no binding agreements in a debate like this. There are no rules that say "if the Fox opinion poll show you lose, you must change your policy on health care."

You harp on the "good of the nation." Fine, show me in what way this would benefit the nation.
 
What would be accomplished? There are no binding agreements in a debate like this. There are no rules that say "if the Fox opinion poll show you lose, you must change your policy on health care."

You harp on the "good of the nation." Fine, show me in what way this would benefit the nation.

Lersxt... I'm shocked! :shock:

Not really... was only guff'in.

There is an old saying, and I learned it from a deceased Scottish doctor. He said, "if there is no discussion, there is no interest."

This would be the most reported debate in the world.
It would rank #1 of political debates... presidential debates.
World wide coverage.

The winner would be known through future actions. That is what counts.

A total exposure of Obama's wrong headed activity would be there for all to see.
This would accomplish a lot at the ballot box in the coming elections.

Obama knows it.

It has been Obama and his Hatchet Men claiming they have nominated him leader... so why not speak with him.

They cut and run because they know they haven't a prayer.
 
There is an old saying, and I learned it from a deceased Scottish doctor. He said, "if there is no discussion, there is no interest."
Codswollop! There's an old saying for you. Old Scottish anecdotes are irrelevant. There is an intense amount of discussion about this administration, it's policies, and it's performance. To suggest otherwise is to simply be obtuse.

This would be the most reported debate in the world.
It would rank #1 of political debates... presidential debates.
World wide coverage.
I'm sure it would. So?

The winner would be known through future actions. That is what counts.
So why have the debate? If the "winner" is determined through future actions then the debate is meaningless.

A total exposure of Obama's wrong headed activity would be there for all to see.
As if your mind and that of like minded people isn't already made up. Obama is tried and convicted in your head. He is under an intense microscope as it is. If your goal is to convince me this debate is necessary or even remotely productive, save your energy. Nobody on this forum has made even a hint of a case that substantiates this to any degree.
This would accomplish a lot at the ballot box in the coming elections.
Hardly. His performance will accomplish a lot at the ballot boxes one way or the other.

Obama knows it.
I doubt that, but it's clear that you're convinced of it.

It has been Obama and his Hatchet Men claiming they have nominated him leader... so why not speak with him.
Obama made a mistake when he even acknowledged Limbaugh. Just because that happened doesn't in any way legitimize Limbaugh to the degree that the President should feel compelled to debate him. Again, there's no point to it.

They cut and run because they know they haven't a prayer.
Okay, sure. We'll go with that.

Now, as I've asked previously, please show me in what way this would benefit our nation. Satisfying your desire to see your boy share a stage with Obama doesn't count.
 
Last edited:
So why have the debate? If the "winner" is determined through future actions then the debate is meaningless.

The United States is not meaningless.

Mr. Bipartisan and his minions are a little gutless about taking on Obama's self anointed leader of the opposition?

Why not destroy the guy once and for all?
 
Limbaugh is just a stupid over opinionated old fool of an entertainer for the not so bright....IMO.
Now, to have the President debate a true intellectual..Bill Buckley was one.....that might be interesting.......but for our President to debate anyone is not good......The pro debater would win every time...and what would this prove ???
 
The United States is not meaningless.
You don't understand. Which is why I keep asking how this will benefit the nation. You can't answer that question for some reason. This debate will not change the United States in any way. It will accomplish nothing meaningful nor will it produce anything of value to the nation. Therefore the debate is meaningless. Unless of course you can articulate a valid counter to this and give an example.

Mr. Bipartisan and his minions are a little gutless about taking on Obama's self anointed leader of the opposition?
I think your OPINION on this is quite clear.

Why not destroy the guy once and for all?
Not sure where your logic is coming from, but if you think you can "destroy the guy once and for all" in a television debate, then I don't think you can truly comprehend what's good or bad for this nation.

With all due respect, your position on this matter is somewhat disturbing. Is this really what the right believes?
 
Back
Top Bottom