Comments on: Maybe you should listen to Rush Limbaugh after all

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:54:36 +0000

Here is a better idea in the same vein as Limbaugh’s. How about cutting taxes for the states that went for McCain while commensurately cutting federal investment and services in those states and slightly raising taxes in the states that voted for Obama and spending the stimulus money there? That way individuals and corporations can then choose where to domicile.

By: ACJ

ACJ — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:02:57 +0000

Lets not have Alzheimer’s people, Obama was left with eight solid years of pachyderm excrement. And the economic stimulous package was another Bush idea that was just as drastic of a decision as the Iraq war. Give the democrats a few months, and there will be a different idea, an original idea.
Rush will always have a place in the hearts of people that hate, have disregard, and less than the truth to munch on.

By: Apostle of love

Apostle of love — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:05:27 +0000

Rush Limbaugh is the corporate power structure’s explicit voice of hate and greed. He glorifies these things. This is different from the subtle corporate propaganda of the New York Times and other “liberal” media outlets. They attempt to provide the illusion of “balance” while censoring any information that might imply the pigs at the top should share.

By: Ian Thorpe

Ian Thorpe — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:47:38 +0000

I can understand why the Prez fears Rush. The man is an incredibly talented broadcaster. Though I do not subscribe to his politics, to be as well informed on current affairs as he is, to be able to organise his thoughts so quickly and speak coherently on whatever subject is thrown at him would make Rush a formidable opponent for anybody.

Obama’s much acclaimed oratorial skill however is very much a myth. From here in Britain I did not see a lot of the election campaign but Obama’s public speaking is only inspiring in the same way as that of a motivational speaker. He has learned his technique well from a good drama teacher, he stands on his mark and says his words as someone once said when commenting on John Wayne’s acting ability, but Obama’s speeches are prewritten banalities read from an autocue. There is no spontenaity.

I saw Obama one in the election coverage trying to react to a question he had not been briefed on. For at least 20 seconds (almost eternity in a television interview) he sat looking at the camera with his mouth flapping open and closed like a codfish lying on the deck of a trawler.

Even an occasional radio performer like myself knows you just cannot afford to be caught like that.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:48:51 +0000

The ‘stimulus package’ is just the Democrats finally getting their hands on the US Treasury with no one to stop them. To the victor go the spoils.

And Obama will turn the US Govt into Chicago-style govt, writ large. Graft, favors, buying votes, muscling out opposition, silencing critics.

By: stuart Williamson

stuart Williamson — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 07:39:48 +0000

jharp : You, like most leftists, are wrong on the religion issue, as in most historical matters.

Our founders were very religious people. The primary reason they came to America was to flee the oppression of the Church of England. What they declared was the separation of CHURCH and state. They were also highly literate. If they had meant “religion” they would have said “religion”,

They wanted no part of official religious organizations, like the Catholic Church, or the Church of England, or a potential “Church of the United Sates”, where, without being elected, Bishops were automatically members of the Senate, or a Cardinal was a de facto Prime Minster, had direct access to the President and might, like Cardinal Richeleau, take over the rule of the country. They did not want Sharia Law or its Christian equivalent.

It never even occurred to the Founders that religion would not be an important factor in a citizen’s vote. And they would be extremely intolerant of the Muslim’s belief in the rule of Islam.

By: David S

David S — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:48:57 +0000

I would be curious to see what the Federal budget breakdown would be if taxpayers determined the specific program(s) to apply their taxes to.

Might be an improvement, might not, but would be a fun experiment. Perhaps break the budget into a few broad categories, and get a percentage breakdown to compare with current outlays.

Peace.

By: sambo hux

sambo hux — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:21:56 +0000

Why didn’t anybody suggest this by-vote approach before? Could it be that you didn’t care what the other side wanted? I think that might be it.

As for shutting up Rush, well, in the words of Bill O’Reilly, “Sometimes we have to sacrifice our civil liberties to protect ourselves.”

or if you prefer . . . Abe Lincoln, blah, habeous corpus, blah, blah, blah, . . . FDR, blah, news reports, blah

Which is it, folks? You can’t have it both ways.

By: David S

David S — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:27:19 +0000

Was Rush not paying attention?

Did he not notice that we tried lowering taxes to stimulate the economy, and ended up with a massive investment bubble, unsupported by fundamental growth in jobs and incomes?

Why should we continue a policy that has just proven itself a massive failure?

You should only listen to Rush if you need a good laugh, or some bad politics.

Peace.

By: Cybergeezer

Cybergeezer — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:55:07 +0000

I love Rush; He brings out the best in the Retardocrats.