The Rush Limbaugh Speech.

[liquid_cool]

Was watching CNN today and the coverage of a convention "said " to be republican and out of the shadows came this guy {Rush Limbaugh} sorry dont know how to spell his name..anyways..he had a great speech and it made me think about whats going on in the counrty...has anyone else seen this?...if so..whats your thoughts...i allso hear..he has 20 million listners?..is that true?...and where can i listen to him?...i havent really herd of him except for some comments on CNN now and again.

[liquid_cool]

P.S. you can see this speach on you tube "Rush Speach" is how its found.

[Jacko3]

Was watching CNN today and the coverage of a convention "said " to be republican and out of the shadows came this guy {Rush Limbaugh} sorry dont know how to spell his name..anyways..he had a great speech and it made me think about whats going on in the counrty...has anyone else seen this?...if so..whats your thoughts...i allso hear..he has 20 million listners?..is that true?...and where can i listen to him?...i havent really herd of him except for some comments on CNN now and again.

Is there such a thing as a good deed done by Rush Limbaugh??? why is Mr Limbaugh so busy tearing away at the heart of this nation?? Is God happy with Rush Limbaugh and all his verbal assault and sabotage on Obama and does Rush have a file in heaven or is the file missing form heaven?

Why does Rush Limbaugh want Obama to fail??? Is Rush Limbaugh still on his medication? Why is he so evil? It seems since Karl Rove left the whitehouse, someone had to fill the void, just as Karl Rove filled the void left by Lee Atwater.

[Armelius]

He clarified why he wanted Obama to fail. Made sense but I don't like Rush.

Coulter had a better speech.

That guy on MSNBC or something got booed when he said that conservatives need a New York Times style newspaper (as if there isn't a USA Today) that even though it is slanted left that they still go out and get the facts and make sure people's names are spelled right.

[Cold_Zero]

Was watching CNN today and the coverage of a convention "said " to be republican and out of the shadows came this guy {Rush Limbaugh} sorry dont know how to spell his name..anyways..he had a great speech and it made me think about whats going on in the counrty...has anyone else seen this?...if so..whats your thoughts...i allso hear..he has 20 million listners?..is that true?...and where can i listen to him?...i havent really herd of him except for some comments on CNN now and again.

You sure it wasn’t CPAC and not a Republican convention? Leave it to CNN to always get it wrong. It would be like calling a conference put on by liberals a ‘Democrat’ convention.

Is there such a thing as a good deed done by Rush Limbaugh??? why is Mr Limbaugh so busy tearing away at the heart of this nation??

Sometimes you need to cut away at cancerous cells in order to heal the patient. I resent the implication that the Socialistic agenda put forward by the Obama Administration is ‘the heart of this nation.’ No the heart of this nation is its people, its heritage and the ethos of what this country stands for in principle.

Quote » Is God happy with Rush Limbaugh and all his verbal assault and sabotage on Obama and does Rush have a file in heaven or is the file missing form heaven?[/quote]Why not leave the politicking to the politicians and the theology to the theologians.

Quote »Why does Rush Limbaugh want Obama to fail???[/quote]Probably because he (Rush) does not like Obama’s agenda, ideology and world view. I don’t blame the man even though I am not a fan of him (Rush). But make no mistake, under that guise of bi-partisanship and goodwill, Obama can be totally polemic in his discourse. I would wager to say, on par with Rush and Hannity when it comes to polemics.

Quote » Is Rush Limbaugh still on his medication? Why is he so evil? [/quote]Way to go, when you can’t refute a man on merit attack his character. Could you imagine someone trying to refute Obama by saying, “Is Obama still on cocaine? Why is he so evil?” No, no one in their right mind would use this argument, but yet you use this argument against Rush Limbaugh? I don’t understand why Rush gets everyone’s blood pressure going.

Quote »It seems since Karl Rove left the whitehouse, someone had to fill the void, just as Karl Rove filled the void left by Lee Atwater.[/quote]No that spot (left vacant by Rove) has been filled with Rahm Emanuel, Rush will need to take a number and get to the back of the line.

[Jacko3]

You sure it wasn’t CPAC and not a Republican convention? Leave it to CNN to always get it wrong. It would be like calling a conference put on by liberals a ‘Democrat’ convention.

Sometimes you need to cut away at cancerous cells in order to heal the patient. I resent the implication that the Socialistic agenda put forward by the Obama Administration is ‘the heart of this nation.’ No the heart of this nation is its people, its heritage and the ethos of what this country stands for in principle.

Why not leave the politicking to the politicians and the theology to the theologians.

Probably because he (Rush) does not like Obama’s agenda, ideology and world view. I don’t blame the man even though I am not a fan of him (Rush). But make no mistake, under that guise of bi-partisanship and goodwill, Obama can be totally polemic in his discourse. I would wager to say, on par with Rush and Hannity when it comes to polemics.

Way to go, when you can’t refute a man on merit attack his character. Could you imagine someone trying to refute Obama by saying, “Is Obama still on cocaine? Why is he so evil?” No, no one in their right mind would use this argument, but yet you use this argument against Rush Limbaugh? I don’t understand why Rush gets everyone’s blood pressure going.

No that spot (left vacant by Rove) has been filled with Rahm Emanuel, Rush will need to take a number and get to the back of the line.

What socialist agenda are you talking about that Bush and his minions have not put into practice so far?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...lskip

http://content.usatoday.com/co...y&p=2

What in those articles suggest that republicans are more capitalist than democrats? Please tell us! We all ears!

I would agree, with leaving theology to the theologians, once the republicans stop telling us who to worship and how to worship. I beleive Christain Conservatives made it possible for Bush to win two elections.

Perhaps, Rush Limbaugh was blind and incapacitated when Bush with the loud silence of republicans, were busy desecrating the essence of this nation with their inexplicable war with phantoms in iraq, was he?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...N.htm

And perhaps, why Rush Limbaugh was so muted that unethical behavior such as that noted in the link below were acceptable to him.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...CText

http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240/?gt1=43002

When rush does not distinguish politics from prsnal attack by suggesting that he wants the President to fail, then he deserves every description directed at him. We are supposed ot be a one nation, trying to solve the problem at hand. But no, Rush and his lips won't let it happen because of ideology. yet, he failed to do the same with President Bush. Why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc

And surprisingly, the new GOP convention Chairman, who tried to reign in his excesses, could not do so. Amazing! http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....html

So, in essence, Rush may be a lose cannon waiting to take something or someone out.

The last time a republican acted in true dignity when a republican was out of line, the following link shoed how it was handled. Today, with rush slowly but surely getting to that line and Ishah Allah, he will cross it, no one in the republican party is saying nothing.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...N.htm

Rahm Emmanuel was a politican, and Karl Rove was a wanna-be politician.

[Cold_Zero]

What socialist agenda are you talking about that Bush and his minions have not put into practice so far?

See folks, when one is called out on the subject, you change the topic and blame the last guy. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of issues that I can take up with Bush during his Administration, namely the border and refusing to enforce the US’s sovereignty and immigration law. But this thread is about Rush and his disagreement with Obama. If you (Jacko) want to rehash was the Bush administration did, let’s dig up one of a plethora of threads in this sub-forum.

Quote »I would agree, with leaving theology to the theologians, once the republicans stop telling us who to worship and how to worship. I beleive Christain Conservatives made it possible for Bush to win two elections.[/quote]This is laughable. When have the Republicans ever leveraged their majority in Politics to tell people who and how to worship? Who cares if conservative Christians, Jews and other religiously affiliated voters made it possible for Bush to win two elections? What did Bush and the Republican controlled Congress actually do to force people into Christian churches or outlaw any other religion? You will find that most Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats hold very dear the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights and abhor any attempt to legislate against the Free Exercise Clause of said Amendment.

Quote »And surprisingly, the new GOP convention Chairman, who tried to reign in his excesses, could not do so. Amazing! http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....html[/quote]I stand by Michael Steele and not because he is the head of the Republican Party. Being a former Marylander, I have always admired former Lt Gov. Steele.

"Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance, so they are building straw men to attack and distract," he said. "The feud between radio host Rush and Rahm makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington."RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats' problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by congressional leaders like [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi," Conant said.

Nuff said.

[Jacko3]

See folks, when one is called out on the subject, you change the topic and blame the last guy. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of issues that I can take up with Bush during his Administration, namely the border and refusing to enforce the US’s sovereignty and immigration law. But this thread is about Rush and his disagreement with Obama. If you (Jacko) want to rehash was the Bush administration did, let’s dig up one of a plethora of threads in this sub-forum.

Nuff said.

No one can discuss the current administration's challenges without referring to whom they inherited the problem from. The economic crisis was not created by the current administration, and no one should be throwing stones at it, if they can't come up with an alternative solution. So, what is Rush Limbaugh's solution to the eocnomic crisis, If he beleives strongly that obama should fail? No one should seek the failure of another, if they themselve have no alternative to sucess. And, the past helps us to understand the future. Thats why reference to the past is vitally important so that we don't make the same mistakes in the future.

Christian conservatives continue to suggest that this nation is a christian nation, when in fact some of the founding fathers of this nation were non-religious--Franklin and Washington were members of the Brotherhood of the Rose and Cross ( I beleive).


Modified by Jacko3 at 9:06 AM 3/3/2009

[Cold_Zero]

Christian conservatives continue to suggest that this nation is a christian nation, when in fact some of the founding fathers of this nation were non-religious--Franklin and Washington were members of the Brotherhood of the Rose and Cross ( I beleive).Modified by Jacko3 at 9:06 AM 3/3/2009

So, because Christian Conservatives suggest that this nation (the United States of America) is a Christian Nation, that somehow constitutes "telling us who to worship and how to worship?" And that because Franklin was not a Christian, refutes the argument? As a side note, Washington was an Episcopalian.

First, the claim is that we are a nation with a Judeo Christian heritage, which we are. Can you honestly tell me that when you look at the early colonial period educational institutions in this country, the Founding Fathers and the verbiage of our Founding Documents that this is somehow not true? For everyone one non Christian founding father that you throw out, I can name at least three (or more) that were Christians.

Now this claim is not thrown out there to support some idea that we are somehow a theocracy. I think you would find that the Christians in this country would be horrified at the idea that we were a theocracy. It was actually tried during the colonial period in Massachusetts and now we have Rhode Island to thank for the failed effort.

[dusred]

Is God happy with Rush Limbaugh and all his verbal assault and sabotage on Obama

Is God happy with you and all your other Liberal friends who verbally assaulted bush and demonized his character? Look at yourself big guy before you go judging others.

Why does Rush Limbaugh want Obama to fail???

I wouldn't say he wants Obama as a person to fail but more his policies.

[Jacko3]

So, because Christian Conservatives suggest that this nation (the United States of America) is a Christian Nation, that somehow constitutes "telling us who to worship and how to worship?" And that because Franklin was not a Christian, refutes the argument? As a side note, Washington was an Episcopalian.

First, the claim is that we are a nation with a Judeo Christian heritage, which we are. Can you honestly tell me that when you look at the early colonial period educational institutions in this country, the Founding Fathers and the verbiage of our Founding Documents that this is somehow not true? For everyone one non Christian founding father that you throw out, I can name at least three (or more) that were Christians.

Now this claim is not thrown out there to support some idea that we are somehow a theocracy. I think you would find that the Christians in this country would be horrified at the idea that we were a theocracy. It was actually tried during the colonial period in Massachusetts and now we have Rhode Island to thank for the failed effort.

As always Cold_Zero, I enjoy debating with you. During the era of Franklin, when our society was more homogenous than it was as heterogenous as our modern society is today, what we refer today as Christian Conservatives, did not exist. Just as Washington, I am Episcopalian. There is absolutely nothing in the Declaration of Independence that references religion or the association of an omnipotent being to any religion. To the founders, God was simply "providence." And to further support this fact, you may want to reference article 11 of the US Treaty with Tripoli as supporting evidence that the US as a nation has neither interest nor subjugation of any religion. See link below.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org....html

[Jacko3]

Is God happy with you and all your other Liberal friends who verbally assaulted bush and demonized his character? Look at yourself big guy before you go judging others.

I wouldn't say he wants Obama as a person to fail but more his policies.

Yes!

On the basis of attribution theory (external or situational attribution), it would appear that if Obama's policies fail, then Obama is a failure. One need not seek the direct failure of Obama to deduce the true intentions of Rush Limbaugh. Simply seeking that an event fail for undisclosed reasons, is evil.

[dusred]

Yes!

I forgot. Your God is Obama.

[Cold_Zero]

As always Cold_Zero, I enjoy debating with you. During the era of Franklin, when our society was more homogenous than it was as heterogenous as our modern society is today, what we refer today as Christian Conservatives, did not exist.

I never made the assertion. I was merely saying that the claim is that we are a nation with a Judeo Christian heritage, rather than we are a Christian nation.

Quote »Just as Washington, I am Episcopalian. There is absolutely nothing in the Declaration of Independence that references religion or the association of an omnipotent being to any religion. To the founders, God was simply "providence." [/quote]Spoken like a true liberal Protestant Anglican. :winkWhile I will not contest that some of the Founding Fathers had a Theistic (what we now call Deism) religious view, there are many other Founding Fathers that held a historical/classical Christian religious view.

Quote »And to further support this fact, you may want to reference article 11 of the US Treaty with Tripoli as supporting evidence that the US as a nation has neither interest nor subjugation of any religion. See link below.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org....html[/quote]I don't disagree with Article 11 at all. In fact it is correct. Our Government is not founded on the Christian religion, if it were it would be a monarchy. No it was founded on the pagan principles of Democracy and of a Republic, which to be honest, is not really a Christian concept. But you are missing the whole point. Now are laws, heritage and culture on the other hand, do not support your claim.

[Jacko3]

I forgot. Your God is Obama.

He is the Messiah (j/k)

[Jacko3]

I never made the assertion. I was merely saying that the claim is that we are a nation with a Judeo Christian heritage, rather than we are a Christian nation.

Spoken like a true liberal Protestant Anglican. :winkWhile I will not contest that some of the Founding Fathers had a Theistic (what we now call Deism) religious view, there are many other Founding Fathers that held a historical/classical Christian religious view.

I don't disagree with Article 11 at all. In fact it is correct. Our Government is not founded on the Christian religion, if it were it would be a monarchy. No it was founded on the pagan principles of Democracy and of a Republic, which to be honest, is not really a Christian concept. But you are missing the whole point. Now are laws, heritage and culture on the other hand, do not support your claim.

What can i say, once an Anglican, always an Anglican. We can be both conservative and yet liberal as hell.

Our laws were largely developed from british common laws, which by loose extension, are Anglican coated laws (King Henry VIII and his adulterous desires). But i am doubtful the cultures are entirely the same. Thus, our current culture really does not have any claim to any religious affiliation. So, i am unsure what claim you speak of.

[liquid_cool]

well well....im no dummie...i knew i would fire up the libbies here with this one..jaco!..thanks man for proving my point to my moderate friends who saw that speach..i am actually a rush listner and have been for about 12 years..i dont think you even saw the speech..it did have its good points allthou rush tends to wander...but you proved my point about the libs by showing how UN-informed you are..and how you revert to personal attacks when confronted with fact sir....all liberals do the same...its a built in defence mechanizim...im not flamin ya or anything....im thanking you for turning my moderate on the fence friends..into new conservatives....thanks

[Jacko3]

well well....im no dummie...i knew i would fire up the libbies here with this one..jaco!..thanks man for proving my point to my moderate friends who saw that speach..i am actually a rush listner and have been for about 12 years..i dont think you even saw the speech..it did have its good points allthou rush tends to wander...but you proved my point about the libs by showing how UN-informed you are..and how you revert to personal attacks when confronted with fact sir....all liberals do the same...its a built in defence mechanizim...im not flamin ya or anything....im thanking you for turning my moderate on the fence friends..into new conservatives....thanks

What facts did you present? What fairy tale attacks are you talking about? Has Rush ever attacked and yet provided a solution to all the problems heralded by Bush which we are still dealing with as a nation?


Modified by Jacko3 at 10:08 AM 3/4/2009

[hsckris]

On the basis of attribution theory (external or situational attribution), it would appear that if Obama's policies fail, then Obama is a failure. One need not seek the direct failure of Obama to deduce the true intentions of Rush Limbaugh. Simply seeking that an event fail for undisclosed reasons, is evil.

Are you kidding? Really?

RL clearly stated he does not agree with BHO policies. As a result of said disagreement, he wants those policies to fail. The net effect on BHO personally is irrelevant. Plain and simple, Americans can not be expected (or forced) to support or hope for the success of things about which they disagree.

This is NO different than the people who wanted Bush's policies to fail because they disagreed with him/them. To put some perspective on this comparision, RL is an entertainer. Senators, congressman, and other officials who opposed Bush's policies openly said that they hoped said policies would fail. So you would like to hold a private entertainer to a higher standard the elected officials of the Federal government? Wow.

[Jacko3]

Are you kidding? Really?

RL clearly stated he does not agree with BHO policies. As a result of said disagreement, he wants those policies to fail. The net effect on BHO personally is irrelevant. Plain and simple, Americans can not be expected (or forced) to support or hope for the success of things about which they disagree.

This is NO different than the people who wanted Bush's policies to fail because they disagreed with him/them. To put some perspective on this comparision, RL is an entertainer. Senators, congressman, and other officials who opposed Bush's policies openly said that they hoped said policies would fail. So you would like to hold a private entertainer to a higher standard the elected officials of the Federal government? Wow.

RL makes no bones about wanting BHO to fail. he appears frustrated that no one else is confident enough to make those assertions publicly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc

So, RL's comments go beyond simply disagreeing with Obama's policies. The term, "FAIL", and the term, "DISAGREEMENT", are not synonymous.

Whether the net effect of such evil talk on BHO is relevant or irrelevant, depends on the psycholgical state of those willing to listen and internalize RL's sermon on the mount about either a real or an impending BHO failure.

RL is an etertainer and yet has unprecedented power and clout within a political party, up to and including shutting up the the new RNC Chairman, who should technically be reigning in RL.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....html

Is RL now a political entertainer of sorts, and since when did politics become a form of entertainment or is our political system now a source of ridicule these days?

I don't remember any Senator or Congressman telling Bush that they wanted him to fail within 100 days in office. I do remember the bitterness of the Bush - Gore elections, and I don't beleive it rose to a direct verbal assault on Bush's policies.

[hsckris]

RL from his radio show:"This notion that I want Obama to fail -- I want everybody to succeed. This is not hard to understand."

"I don't want economic failure. I don't want the kind of pain and suffering that we have now to get any worse. It's the exact opposite. I don't want this economy to get worse just so people learn the truth about Obama."

"I want Obama to fail in being successful with his economic plan." (hence his policies to fail).

"Well, I tell you, I would become Barack Obama's biggest cheerleader in this country. If he actually proposed ideas to jump-start this economy, so there isn't any more economic pain and we can bottom out at some point and start building this back. But, folks, his plan doesn't do that."

Even if you don't believe it from the horses mouth, it is my opinion that this thing is being made an issue to deflect attention away from the fact that the Dow has fallen 3000pts on BHO's watch, and presumably as a direct response to his 'stimulus'.

[Jacko3]

RL from his radio show:"This notion that I want Obama to fail -- I want everybody to succeed. This is not hard to understand."

"I don't want economic failure. I don't want the kind of pain and suffering that we have now to get any worse. It's the exact opposite. I don't want this economy to get worse just so people learn the truth about Obama."

"I want Obama to fail in being successful with his economic plan." (hence his policies to fail).

"Well, I tell you, I would become Barack Obama's biggest cheerleader in this country. If he actually proposed ideas to jump-start this economy, so there isn't any more economic pain and we can bottom out at some point and start building this back. But, folks, his plan doesn't do that."

Even if you don't believe it from the horses mouth, it is my opinion that this thing is being made an issue to deflect attention away from the fact that the Dow has fallen 3000pts on BHO's watch, and presumably as a direct response to his 'stimulus'.

There is some truth to your comment. Deflection of attention is a well known political strategy employed by many Presidents in the history of our nation. So, I am not sure where BHO has gone wrong in using a tool of the trade. RL has exposed himself, by himself, as a legitimate political target. he can de-expose himself if he chooses to do so, so that he is no longer a political target.

[Cold_Zero]

Well, it appears that all of this is getting to the Obama Administration, at least the White House Press Secretary.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...obama/Jim Cramer. Rush Limbaugh. Rick Santelli.

What do they all have in common? Most likely, none of them is getting invited to the White House Christmas party.

All three media personalities have been singled out by President Obama's press shop in the course of less than two weeks. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in doing so, has shown an unusual willingness to spar with cable and radio hosts who take shots at his boss.

The rebuttals have ranged from playful ribbing to disdainful scolding.

Talk show host Limbaugh has drawn the most ire from the White House. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called him out on Sunday for saying he wants Obama to fail, after Obama told Republican lawmakers not to listen to people like Limbaugh several weeks ago.

Gibbs followed up Monday, calling on conservative pundits to challenge Limbaugh on air.

"Do they want to see the president's economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether -- whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend," Gibbs said. But then he took a shot at those who applauded Limbaugh during his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington over the weekend.

"You know, I'd like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people. We'll say, in watching a few cable clips of Mr. Limbaugh's speech, his notion of presidential failures seemed to be quite popular in the room in which he spoke," he said.

Gibbs repeated his call for Republicans to speak up on whether they agree with Limbaugh Tuesday. Limbaugh has said that while he wants Obama to fail, he doesn't want the economy to fail.

Donald Rieck, executive director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs, said the Obama team, which studies have shown received far more favorable press treatment during the campaign than its rivals, is apparently having trouble acclimating to a more critical press post-Inauguration Day.

"If they're going to do this, to jump like that every time someone says something provocative about them, it's going to be an awfully long tenure for Gibbs, because there's a way to let this roll off your shoulders," he said.

Gibbs didn't stop at Limbaugh, who Democrats eagerly claim speaks for the Republican Party in the absence of a clear leader. (House Republican Leader John Boehner asserted Wednesday that the White House was intentionally elevating Limbaugh to distract from their budget.)

On Tuesday, Gibbs also responded to a question about CNBC host Jim Cramer's claim that Obama's economic policies represent the "greatest wealth destruction" by a president.

"If you turn on a certain program, it's geared to a very small audience, no offense to my good friends or friend at CNBC," Gibbs said.

Gibbs tried to hedge at first, saying, "this is where I have to probably be careful," and "I'm not entirely sure what he's pointing to," and "I'm going to get in a lot of trouble."

That was almost certainly a reference to the last time he went after a CNBC reporter -- Rick Santelli.

In late February, Gibbs responded at length to Santelli's on-air rant at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, in which he stirred up traders by shouting that the government was promoting "bad behavior" with its mortgage rescue plan. "This is America," he said. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"

Asked about the segment, Gibbs said: "I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives. But the America people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage."

He said Santelli argued "quite wrongly" that the plan was ineffective and concluded by inviting him to the White House for a cup of "decaf" coffee.

"I would encourage him to read the president's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I would be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf."

The press in the room laughed at the quip, but Santelli later said he felt personally threatened by the White House.

Still, Gibbs said Tuesday he did not actually get in a "lot of trouble" for singling out Santelli.

"There are very few days that I've had more fun," Gibbs said.

[intermilanrox]

I don't remember any Senator or Congressman telling Bush that they wanted him to fail within 100 days in office. I do remember the bitterness of the Bush - Gore elections, and I don't beleive it rose to a direct verbal assault on Bush's policies.

That's funny because I don't remember President Bush openly critizing Clinton on his Administration in his speeches. Which could have been done easily when it comes to the War on Terror. It's just part of the liberals tactics: blame everyone else and, criticize everyone else's ideas but don't come up with any ideas yourself.

[Jacko3]

That's funny because I don't remember President Bush openly critizing Clinton on his Administration in his speeches. Which could have been done easily when it comes to the War on Terror. It's just part of the liberals tactics: blame everyone else and, criticize everyone else's ideas but don't come up with any ideas yourself.

Try being liberal once, you are gonna enjoy it. By the way, I love being conservative when it comes to abortion, drugs, family/marriage, etc. Would you like for me to introduce you to the liberal lifestyle? Its gonna blow you mind when you discover the joy of being liberal.

[intermilanrox]

Haha No, but thanks for the offer. I enjoy my conservative views just fine. It's fun to be a Republican in CT. You get alot of WTF's when people find out. Plus its great for arguing.

[liquid_cool]

What facts did you present? What fairy tale attacks are you talking about? Has Rush ever attacked and yet provided a solution to all the problems heralded by Bush which we are still dealing with as a nation?

Modified by Jacko3 at 10:08 AM 3/4/2009

the point was to my friends ..about your rants...and this post was about "Watching the Rush speach"..insted of watching it..you flew into a rant about bush and the likes..proving my point to my moderate..now more conservative friends...the whole premis of this post..was "DID you watch the video?"..not about bush's bad calls on spending bro.....like all liberals when cornerd with facts..you launch into a personal attack..and again..i thank you for proving my point..

[C-Kwik]

and how you revert to personal attacks when confronted with fact sir....all liberals do the same...its a built in defence mechanizim

like all liberals when cornerd with facts..you launch into a personal attack.

Generalizing much? Or should I start calling all conservatives illiterate because you don't use proper grammar? You want to point out flaws in Jacko's arguments? Be my guest. But don't go negatively labelling any group based on one person's responses to you.

As for the topic, it seems to me that Rush squandered his "first ever address to the nation" by trying to inspire with rhetoric and appeals to emotions. I'd find him more credible if he used such an opportunity to actually make intelligent and specific points about his views and/or disagreements with Obama/liberal/democratic views. He's an intelligent guy. And an entertaining speaker. But I certainly don't feel more informed after watching the speech, let alone make me think about what is going on in the country; I do that on my own already.

[Cold_Zero]

Not to pile on and I dont want to be a grammar or spelling Gestapo, but would it kill us to run through a spell check from time to time? Case in point it is spelled Speech, not Speach. I have corrected the thread's title. I know we call make mistakes, but I really think we hurt our credibility by misspelling every other word.bud

[CakeDaddy]

The words "I hope he fails" will forever stick in the minds of many. I applaud him for attemting to clean up after himself, but the damage is done. He might as well had said I hope the US or the American people fail. Remember, if the president fails we all fail. PERIOD.

Rush is a big hippocrite! Remember the Rosie O'Donnel episode.