Breaking Free From Rush

Ken, why is this of interest to you? You admitted that you don't listen to his radio show and demonstrated it by a complete misrepresentation of what he "advocates" and who he "panders" to.

On what basis do you judge the author of your cited article and it's contents ?

Put down the kool-aid, guy.:tongue3:

 

Rush has free speech rights just as the pro-Obama media. Maybe Obama should listen to those who disagree with him and try to work out a solution. Isn't that what he expected of President Bush? I guess that has all flown out the window now that the shoe is on the other foot.

 

According to an account in the New York Post, President Barack Obama yesterday told Republican leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." With George W. Bush now off the stage, it may be that Obama and some of his fellow Democrats view Limbaugh, and not John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or any other elected official, as the true leader of the Republican opposition. This morning I asked Rush for his thoughts on all this, and here is his response:

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."


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=

 

The last thing we need is a pork laden spending bill rushed through Congress. They can't come up with a decent bill in months. How can anyone believe they can come up with an $825 billion spending bill in 2-3 weeks?

 

Think I'll break free from KenH. He couldn't prove his false statements in another thread, so he started this one. Maybe silencing one's critics is seen as freedom of speech for some......

 

That's because he handed you your head every time he debated you.:laugh:

 

Here's what Bo really meant: "You can't listen to (accurate reporting) and get things done."

 

Has Rush EVER told the truth? Not to my knowledge. He's just trying to make a buck off the foolish conservatives who back him.

 

Is Rush an arrogant blow hard? Sure he is, but to say he is never told the truth is going a bit far. He's certainly more entertaining than anything I've heard on Air America.

Debate remains more intelligent and interesting when people don't make such dramatic statements obviously looking to rile someone up .

 

It's called hyperbole, heh.

 

I enjoy considering Rush Limbaugh's comments - not always with 100% agreement - and think I'll continue to do so.

On the other hand I'm happy to say that I'm not buying Barrack Obama's comments - hardly even a few percent - and will be glad when the White House is free of him and his influence.

 

Obama Gets Mad Way Toooooo Often

Obama seems to be heading for a head-on crash with the right to free speech. He has criticized Sean Hannity, Rush, and many other Conservative radio and television hosts.

The last time I checked, this was still America, and we have a right to criticize the POTUS. Bush never once [that I can remember] tried to shut up his critics. However, Obama is seriously getting close to crossing a line that will either get him impeached, or bring about a new and Socialistic America.

This should worry the church. If BHO can shut up the Conservative talk show hosts, he can shut up the church, and any and all American citizens that speak their mind when it comes to his administrative choices and decisions.:tonofbricks:

Pastor Paul

 

The fact the Obama singled him out should be a warning to all of us. No one is safe. I think it was a warning to the American people. Obama is a dangerous leader.

 

You Must Be a Prophet?

Your vision of Obama is right on....he is scary and dangerous. We all need to be concerned. I don't think we are at the place of being afraid, but, cautiously concerned.:flower:

 

I would like to thank obama and the democrats for giving the "irrelevent" Limbaugh more publicity. Keep it up. The more you attack him the more fired up Rush and his listeners get. Thank you Ken for your post. Keep up the good work. Rush and Mark levin are champing at the bit to counter-attack when you liberals try to silence right wing talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine. Please Ken, can you post some more items having to do with Rush limbaugh? Thank you Ken for your help.

 

Limbaugh frightens liberals.

He sees through almost all the liberal scams amd reports it to millions daily.

He's right way to often to suit them.

 

Take Rush at his word ... he says he is an entertrainer. So why take him seriously? If he is to be taken seriously then John Stewart should also be taken seriously. :laugh:

Rush only talks to himself and his listeners. At least Stewart interviews people, like polilticians, generals, authors, etc. Wonder why Rush doesn't do the same?

Rush talks about Obama a lot. Does that make Rush a dangerous man?

 

There is a little bit of a difference.

Obama is in the position of silencing his critics with the force of law contrary to the rights to freedom of speech.

Rush Limbaugh is not in the same position of power to do so.

The power to impose one's will upon another is what creates the danger.

How would the rest of the world view America if our government started trampling the rights of free speech of it's critics? I only ask because what other countries think about the U.S. seems to be very important to you.