4
   

Limbaugh challenges Oinkbama to debate

 
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 12:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Is Obama responding personally? I haven't seen that. His politicos around him are doing their job - bitch-slapping the other side around - but Obama seems to remain above the fray for now.

Cycloptichorn


After personally calling attention to Hannity - the guy who wants to be like Rush - Obama now allows his chief of staff to address Limbaugh on the Sunday morning shows. Just as he allows his communications director to address criticism of Cramer, the CNBC guy who is blaming Obama for leading the US into a depression.

Nixon also stayed above the fray. Until his enemies list was published.

I have no problem with other Dem groups in the fight. That's just good politics. But Obama's administration speaks for Obama, doesn't it?

And as I pointed out to another A2Ker, Obama is either an idiot, as he must realize he is empowering said talk show types, or a genius, as we are spending time talking about this rather than yesterday's stock market dropping over 200 points, Russia’s ignoring his letter of peace re missile defense, and the Fed refusing to name the banks it has bailed out, a new twist to Obama’s “open government”...

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 12:42 pm
For the benefit of anybody who hadn't figured it out yet....

The reason Bork isn't taking Rush up on the challenge is not complicated. Limbaugh can speak perfectly well without teleprompters. In a debate which involved anything more than reading from teleprompters, Bork would get slaughtered like a sheep.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 12:42 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

Is Obama responding personally? I haven't seen that. His politicos around him are doing their job - bitch-slapping the other side around - but Obama seems to remain above the fray for now.

Cycloptichorn


After personally calling attention to Hannity - the guy who wants to be like Rush - Obama now allows his chief of staff to address Limbaugh on the Sunday morning shows. Just as he allows his communications director to address criticism of Cramer, the CNBC guy who is blaming Obama for leading the US into a depression.

Nixon also stayed above the fray. Until his enemies list was published.

I have no problem with other Dem groups in the fight. That's just good politics. But Obama's administration speaks for Obama, doesn't it?


Aw, dey're being mean to the assholes on the right wing! Bad Obama!

pfff

It is the job of the politicians around the president to smack these idiots around. Obama is merely letting them do their job, so that he doesn't have to.

Cramer is a crook and shouldn't even be brought up in this conversation. He deserves to be called out for his bullshit.

Cycloptichorn
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Aw, dey're being mean to the assholes on the right wing! Bad Obama!

pfff

It is the job of the politicians around the president to smack these idiots around. Obama is merely letting them do their job, so that he doesn't have to.

Cramer is a crook and shouldn't even be brought up in this conversation. He deserves to be called out for his bullshit.

Cycloptichorn


No, I just think it shows a lack of confidence on Obama's part, and maybe - although I truly hope I'm wrong here - a touch of paranoia. He really seems focused on his detractors for being so early in his term, doesn't he?

Bush was abused big time, yet he kept his dignity intact. As did Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, and Carter.

The last president to act like this was Nixon.

And this frightens me a little. Doesn't it bother you, just a tad?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:18 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

Aw, dey're being mean to the assholes on the right wing! Bad Obama!

pfff

It is the job of the politicians around the president to smack these idiots around. Obama is merely letting them do their job, so that he doesn't have to.

Cramer is a crook and shouldn't even be brought up in this conversation. He deserves to be called out for his bullshit.

Cycloptichorn


No, I just think it shows a lack of confidence on Obama's part, and maybe - although I truly hope I'm wrong here - a touch of paranoia. He really seems focused on his detractors for being so early in his term, doesn't he?


No, he doesn't. You may recall that the discussion of these people has been in response to specific questions asked by the Media to Obama's people on talk shows and at press conferences. It's not like they are bringing it up themselves.

If you could get your guy Steele to quit making an ass of himself, or somehow get fatass Limbaugh to shut up for a minute, I doubt you'd see much more of this.

Quote:
Bush was abused big time, yet he kept his dignity intact. As did Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, and Carter.

The last president to act like this was Nixon.

And this frightens me a little. Doesn't it bother you, just a tad?


I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Neither Bush nor Clinton particularly 'kept their dignity' in several fashions.

I really could care less what Obama or anyone in his crew says about right-wingers. They deserve to have these things said about them. Gibbs was only being accurate, as was Rahm, when he described Rush as the leader of your party. It's time this was brought into the open for people to see.

Cycloptichorn
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

I really could care less what Obama or anyone in his crew says about right-wingers. They deserve to have these things said about them. Gibbs was only being accurate, as was Rahm, when he described Rush as the leader of your party. It's time this was brought into the open for people to see.



Another issue we're going to disagree about, Cy. This time, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall and I'd like to stay civil, if you'd agree.

Interesting point here is the whole 1st Amendment, quelling free speech aspects of this. After Bush 2000, dems and libs were incensed, and the drumbeat from the left was even stronger from what we're hearing currently from the right.

I can imagine the reaction from the left if Bush had done something similar at the time.

Repubs and the right fought back, but the Bush admin stayed above it, trying to mend the situation and govern. Obama seems to deliberately be doing the opposite.

Is this a strategy? Base instinct? Or just inexperience? The Chicago Way?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:31 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

I really could care less what Obama or anyone in his crew says about right-wingers. They deserve to have these things said about them. Gibbs was only being accurate, as was Rahm, when he described Rush as the leader of your party. It's time this was brought into the open for people to see.



Another issue we're going to disagree about, Cy. This time, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall and I'd like to stay civil, if you'd agree.

Interesting point here is the whole 1st Amendment, quelling free speech aspects of this. After Bush 2000, dems and libs were incensed, and the drumbeat from the left was even stronger from what we're hearing currently from the right.

I can imagine the reaction from the left if Bush had done something similar at the time.

Repubs and the right fought back, but the Bush admin stayed above it, trying to mend the situation and govern. Obama seems to deliberately be doing the opposite.

Is this a strategy? Base instinct? Or just inexperience? The Chicago Way?



Well, just look how great the Bush admin turned out - a bigger bunch of incompetent assholes is hard to imagine. You would honestly complain about someone else doing something differently?

I wouldn't hold Bush up as an example of anything positive in the future were I you... you won't get far with that for sure!

Cycloptichorn
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:41 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

Well, just look how great the Bush admin turned out - a bigger bunch of incompetent assholes is hard to imagine. You would honestly complain about someone else doing something differently?

I wouldn't hold Bush up as an example of anything positive in the future were I you... you won't get far with that for sure!

Cycloptichorn


This time the left was correct.

But let me understand; if Obama turns out to be a train wreck, Limbaugh and company should be held up as righteous? He was right, so therefore, was justified?

You do see you have to accept it both ways?
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 01:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
And I'll add (instead of edit, we seem to going back and forth between this and the NRA thread - kind of fun) the difference is this:

Bush stayed above the fray; Obama isn't.

So if the left was justified in bashing Bush, is Limbaugh justified in bashing Obama? You seem to be insulted in one aspect, but not the other.

Is that right?

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 02:43 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

And I'll add (instead of edit, we seem to going back and forth between this and the NRA thread - kind of fun) the difference is this:

Bush stayed above the fray; Obama isn't.

So if the left was justified in bashing Bush, is Limbaugh justified in bashing Obama? You seem to be insulted in one aspect, but not the other.

Is that right?



The right-wing has the right to say whatever they want. Free speech is cool like that.

I disagree that Bush 'stayed above the fray.' He was just naughty in completely different ways.

IF Obama fails, and our nation slides into disarray, then Limbaugh could easily be said to have been correct. We'll have to wait and see.

Cyclotpichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2009 11:00 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:
Bush was abused big time, yet he kept his dignity intact.


"Bush" and 'dignity" don't belong anywhere near one another. It's impossible for a lying, war criminal piece of scum like that to have any dignity. Every time he opened his mouth he illustrated just what a fool he is.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 04:44 am
@gungasnake,

Such pronouncement from the likes of Limbaugh makes me think of the saying, if Pres Obama was ever tempted:

You should never try to wrestle with a pig. You'll only get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 12:21 pm
@McTag,
Most interesting pronouncement from Limbaugh recently is the effect of the Oinkbama attack on the bottom line...

http://able2know.org/topic/130126-1
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 04:36 pm
  http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/A/limbaugh_oxycontin.jpg




Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 01:46 pm
A good debate might be between Limbaugh and Krugman. The latter was once interviewed by O'Reilly, who came across as an adolescent moron. However, O'Reilly, as might be expected, self-servingly declared himself the victor of a debate between the two.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 09:58 pm
@JTT,
Quote:

"Bush" and 'dignity" don't belong anywhere near one another. It's impossible for a lying, war criminal piece of scum like that to have any dignity. Every time he opened his mouth he illustrated just what a fool he is.


I'll agree he was a moron. But he didn't mention detractors by name, as Obama has with Hannity as has had his chief of staff do with Limbaugh. Most modern presidents have stayed above this...

Except Nixon, of course. And we know how that turned out...

BTW, when do you think our left wing congress will hold hearings on Bush the war criminal?

Or maybe they can't?
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 10:00 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
The Limbaugh oxy jokes were all done on page 1, DTOM, until I reminded everyone Obama used to be a crack whore, and we really should acknowledge that in the interest of fairness...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 02:31 am
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:
Re: JTT (Post 3593038)
Quote:

"Bush" and 'dignity" don't belong anywhere near one another. It's impossible for a lying, war criminal piece of scum like that to have any dignity. Every time he opened his mouth he illustrated just what a fool he is.


This is why I have this ignorant piece of **** (JTT) on ignore.

Again for anybody who might have missed it George W. bush did not have any good choices after 9-11 and the anthrax attacks which followed immediately thereafter. Saddam Hussein had just poisoned the US senate office building and two federal post office buildings with anthrax and we needed to go into iraq the day after 9/11 but were not able to due to the entirely wretched state in which SlicKKK KKKlintler (the real criminal in the picture) had left the US military; we had to initiate a crash building program for two years first.

McTag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 02:57 am
@gungasnake,

How can anyone make so many mistakes in so few words?

A minor masterpiece.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 03:11 am
@McTag,
What mistakes??
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 07:08:34