Comments on: ‘Mr. Obama, Tear Down These Walls!’

By: Horace Wells

Horace Wells — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:00:11 +0000

Grover Pillsbury:
You can tell someone is a reactionary fool when he calls everyone he disagrees with a communist.
Marc Malone, your thesis is total crap. The military is a permanent bureacracy full of smaller permanent bureacracies that have ceased to have relevance. Can’t you at least make sense for once, which starts by being honest? What about the military pension and benefit future costs, as well as maintenance on facilities?

By: Marc Malone

Marc Malone — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:29:46 +0000

#34 G Alston – You make good points. I would like to clarify, however, that every budget Reagan proposed was balanced. It was the Dem Congress that created the deficits. The reverse was true of Clinton. The Pub Congress had to force him to accept a balanced budget. Clinton took credit for the ensuing boom caused by… (drum roll, please)… tax cuts and balanced budgets!

The good thing about Reagan’s military buildup, is that such never create a permanent bureaucracy. Military expenditures can be discontinued. That’s part of how the budget eventually got balanced in the Clinton years.

By: jacksonhunted

jacksonhunted — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:27:50 +0000

It’s not a matter of what we want. Obama has failed. He failed when he adopted policies that had never worked anywhere. He failed when he ignored historical evidence that what he desired created more want than have. It doesn’t matter what I want, what Rush Limbaugh wants, or what anyone else wants. Failure is the only possible outcome. Do I want Obama to fail? Yes. But it wouldn’t matter if I didn’t. Our Economic Illiterate-in-Chief would have sown the seeds of his Administration’s destruction either way.

The so-called “stimulus” plans and massive bailouts were Obama’s Iraq. They just happened in his first month in office, and unlike the war can’t be saved by a wise general or more of the same. I’m not even certain the nation can be salvaged because of Obama first and unforgivably reckless actions.

Limbaugh’s speech was good as those things go. But it was no more than acknowledging water is wet.

By: G Alston

G Alston — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:24:37 +0000

The comparison to Reagan is actually quite humourous.

Reagan spent money like crazy rebuilding the military. His detractors screeched about the then-record deficit. What Reagan did though paid back well enough (wealth creation) that by the time of Clinton the budget was balanced.

It’s fair to be critical of Obama’s spending; like most leftists he doesn’t get that spending money on technology (usually via the military) and energy is an investment.

Ike did it too. Interstate highways? MILITARY road system… investment.

The difference between liberals and conservatives isn’t measured as Limbaugh suggests by counting dollar signs, but rather what they’re spent on. Claims to the contrary are just that, claims, and aren’t substantiated by actual data/historical record.

If Obama promised to spend the same amount on creating 10 new nuclear power plants in every state of the union, I’d CHEER like crazy because this is an investment. Of course, that’s not going to happen. He’s an idiot.

Rush doesn’t see it either. He sounds like nothing more than an empty windbag because that’s all he is. In the end all you have is a windbag who doesn’t get it insulting an idiot who doesn’t get it.

By: William

William — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:34:48 +0000

Right on. We are in a scary spot right now, and I am so grateful for Limbaugh’s refusal to cave.

By: Middleman

Middleman — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:06:24 +0000

As far as Rush’s address is concerned, it was the greed that poisoned the market due to the current deregulations that put us in this position in the first place. I don’t agree with all of Obama’s methods, but it’s amusing that he is to be berated for trying to clear up what was screwed up by the people most of you support. Guess what, It didn’t work the way it was suppose to. Communism doesn’t work on a large-scale model in reality, just like unregulated capitalism doesn’t work on a large-scale model.

By: Grover Pillsbury

Grover Pillsbury — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:21:50 +0000

OOPS, sorry – ‘Butcher’

By: Grover Pillsbury

Grover Pillsbury — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:42:38 +0000

Greetings, all.
We should collectively ignore Rotwang, because in my opinion he is a Communist along with the Obamessiah. All communist takeovers have been conducted this way: appeal to intellectual debate; then disarm the populace; then, after you have taken over, guess who they liquidate first: the intelligentia. Example: Fidel Castro, college professor, recruits his fellows, turns revolutionary, overthrows Fulgencio Batista, nicknamed ‘The Botcher’, then proceeds to out-butcher the butcher, starting with his former colleagues. When all the ‘brains’ are either dead or have joined him, who is left to oppose him? God save America.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:24:11 +0000

First off, let me say this a great piece. Secondly, let me say the kind of comments made by “middleman” above prove that the ignorance in this country is so vast we may not be able to overcome it. Limbaugh is not important because of his looks, his weight, his clothes, or the number of aspirin he does or doesn’t take in the morning. He is important (as Reagan was important) because he speaks clearly the ideals which have undergirded our society since its founding; the very ideals that Obama wants to destroy.

By: Indy

Indy — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:58:20 +0000

Great piece. I only wish more people had caught what Rush was really saying. We are up against it here, and it would be quite helpful if Obama would remove the barriers to freedom like tax increases and regulation.