Limbaugh: Obama May Give Gordon Brown ...

[hesnothere]

Wow, just wow, this is wrong on all accounts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/limbaugh-obama-may-give-g_n_181888.html

[atprm]

since when is Rush not over the top?

[Jolie Rouge]

That is part of Rush's schick ... he is always over the top, brash and loud.... that is how he gets your attention.

[speedygirl]

What a class act. The Republican party should be so proud.
That's more then over the top. It's the rantings of a douchenozzle. Rush was more sane when he was chewing on vicodin.


I like this line from the article.


Naturally, how Limbaugh gained such innovative insight into the epidemiological vectors of saliva-borne ass toxins remains an open question.

[hesnothere]

What a class act. The Republican party should be so proud.
That's more then over the top. It's the rantings of a douchenozzle. Rush was more sane when he was chewing on vicodin.


I like this line from the article.

Like attracts like.

[speedygirl]

Like attracts like.

True. We can add this one to some of his other brainless quotes.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/03/rush-limbaughs-10-dumbest-remarks.html

Rush Limbaugh’s three-decade career in radio has produced some of the dumbest statements ever uttered. To coincide with Michael Wolff’s article on Limbaugh from the new issue, VF.com presents a list of the schlock jock’s 10 most asinine pronouncements:

1. “There is no conclusive proof that nicotine’s addictive... And the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease.”

2. “Columbus saved the Indians from themselves.”

3. "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

4. “[African Americans] are twelve percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

5. “Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.”

6. “Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

7. “We are a growing country and everybody needs energy! We're not going to stay the United States if we start reducing energy usage. Conservation is not the answer.”

8. To a black caller: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

9. On torture at Abu Ghraib: “This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation. And we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people—you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some team off?”

10. “Screw the world. Do you really think we ought to govern ourselves based on what the world thinks of us?”

[Jolie Rouge]

What a class act. The Republican party should be so proud.

What does the Rep. party have to do with Rush ? Rush is an entertainer who get you to listen ( and read ) what he has to sell. Does anyone take their political insight from Carrot Top ?

( No - I didn't read the posted article ... I can only guess by the comments being posted ... )

Now.... back to playing with smilies


:snob

:sheep:

:argue

:cool:

:bird:

:five:

:happy

:hang

:lollypop:

:shhh

:stupido2:

:bouquet

:duck

:cheers:

:sob

:shakehands:

:amen

:bike:

:fisheye:

:thankyou

:proud:

:turtle:

:crossfingers

:grumpy

:dito:

:yikes

:listen:

:shrug

:stupido:

:flowers:

[jeanea33]

What a class act. The Republican party should be so proud.
That's more then over the top. It's the rantings of a douchenozzle. Rush was more sane when he was chewing on vicodin.


I like this line from the article.


Cant blame everyone in the republican party for Rush's opinions. I dont blame every democrate for Obama.

[speedygirl]

Some have dubbed him the face of the republican party. We've discussed this. I know it's a media made thing but many people believe it. So when many hear that kind of a$$holery it reflects upon some conservatives. When you hear the name Limbaugh, Democrat doesn't cross the mind. People actually believe idiots like him. There's a good segment of the population that is gullible and believe his rhetoric. That was the point tongue in cheek. ;)


ETA



Cant blame everyone in the republican party for Rush's opinions. I dont blame every democrate for Obama.


I don't blame the whole republican party. See above explanation.

[atprm]

he reminds me of people like: Howard Stern, Donald Trump, Rosie O'Donnell, and that dude with the weird name that called the black girls "nappy headed hos" etc...

all are over the top -- all are obnoxious

they make their money from being shock jocks.

[speedygirl]

he reminds me of people like: Howard Stern, Donald Trump, Rosie O'Donnell, and that dude with the weird name that called the black girls "nappy headed hos" etc...

all are over the top -- all are obnoxious

they make their money from being shock jocks.

Don Imus. It's too bad that some can't differentiate from moron speak and reality, lol.

[atprm]

it's funny, but sad... that you can remember what they said but can't remember their name. LOL

At the end of the day, no matter what Rush or the Donald or Imus or Rosie (etc) say -- the money goes in their pockets not mine or anyone else's...so the only benefits they give are for themselves.

[anothersta]

LOL That was a good one, Rush!

I thought Gordon was doing tons of slobbering myself. It was disgusting.

[SurferGirl]

This morning my hubby had NBC on for awhile and they were all slobbering over the Obama's so much I had to change the channel. I do realize NBC is owned by GE and the CEO of GE is in the Obama cabinet, but it still makes me sick how one way they are.

Then I do think it's a bit strange that someone would nominate someone for an economic team that has driven his own company into the ground and who also sold technology to Iran after being told not to. hmmmmmmmmmmm
I guess is works if your true goal is to destroy our economy.

[FauxHoChic]

5. “Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.”

ITA

[speedygirl]

There are much better ways to make a point though. Rush seems to be obsessed with all things A$$. I've heard him make many a sphincter related comment over the years. He needs to be more creative when he has diarrhea of the mouth. He's used anal poisoning line in the past. Taken from the horses mouth (my apologies to all horses). Now to get out my eye bleach after spending too long on his site.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_013108/content/01125114.guest.html.guest.html


CALLER: I was just curious, though, and maybe I'm just dreaming here. Do you think there is a ghost of a chance that come nomination time -- and, you know, if McCain does go this far -- that Rudy might be his vice presidential candidate?

RUSH: You know, I haven't even thought about who McCain's vice presidential candidate would be.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: David Broder however, big liberal writer for the Washington Post is advising us to choose Huckabee.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: Because he's a conservative and would essentially be president-in-waiting.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: Let's see.

CALLER: You know, I was just taken with their closeness over the last two days, and I thought, "Hmm, I wonder if there is a ghost of a chance." Of course, New York papers say that that won't happen. Rudy will go back to his...

RUSH: It's not going to be Lindsey Graham. It's not.

CALLER: Yeah?

RUSH: He doesn't need South Carolina. It's not going to be Lindsey Graham.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: No. It's not going to be Lindsey Graham.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: Look, I may be wrong. I don't know. Lindsey Graham is certainly close enough to him to die of anal poisoning.

CALLER: (chuckles)

[candygirl]

Wow, just wow, this is wrong on all accounts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/limbaugh-obama-may-give-g_n_181888.html



The Republican "Spokesperson " at his best :thumpdown:

[anothersta]

The republican spokesperson was ginned up by the current admin.

Anyone who believes that malarchy needs to take another look. It's just like saying Rosie was the democratic spokesperson way back when.

Silly. There is a difference. Rush has a WHOLE lot of listeners.

PS. Everyone KNOWS that Daniel Hannan is the spokesperson for the republican party!

[speedygirl]

The sad thing is that a great deal of his listeners believe his statements. Rosie is a moron as well. If people fall for their crap, they're not too bright. But we all have freedom of speech regardless if it's hateful or not.

[atprm]

well, you can ask Imus... its only "free" until you really piss someone off....then notsomuch :D

[janelle]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html

When Limbaugh says something it doesn't change policy, when Obama says something it does. Obama has said some pretty dumb things and the tax payer will pay for it.

[speedygirl]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html

When Limbaugh says something it doesn't change policy, when Obama says something it does. Obama has said some pretty dumb things and the tax payer will pay for it.

It's called having class. The difference is that Obama isn't a drug addict who spews vile commentary that insults just about every group he disagrees with. The man is a hypocrite. remember his anti drug BS? All the while breaking the law by procuring narcotics illegally. If Limbaugh spoke with a little more intelligent language he might earn respect.
This post has nothing to do with Obama's policy, it's about disgusting behavior by a man who is obsessed with anal references. He's a pig.

[janelle]

Well, a man who makes the US tax payers pay for abortions overseas when it is against many Americans' consciences and voted to let born alive babies from botched abortions die and have no medical care is a bigger pig, IMO.

Limbaugh can be full of hot air at times to get the audience ratings but Obama is downright dangerous.

[mikej]

Well, a man who makes the US tax payers pay for abortions overseas when it is against many Americans' consciences and voted to let born alive babies from botched abortions die and have no medical care is a bigger pig, IMO.

Limbaugh can be full of hot air at times to get the audience ratings but Obama is downright dangerous.

We do noy pay for abortions overseas. We fund birth control. Many on the right oppose birth control.

Also, every survey that I have ever seen shows that Americans overwhelming support keeping abortion both safe and legal.

If you do not believe in abortion, don'y have one.

[jeanea33]

We do noy pay for abortions overseas. We fund birth control. Many on the right oppose birth control.

Also, every survey that I have ever seen shows that Americans overwhelming support keeping abortion both safe and legal.

If you do not believe in abortion, don'y have one.



Our President and Senate just passed a bill funding abortions overseas. I know this isnt 1 book or someones opinion blog, you will call it unreliable. lol


http:WASHINGTON, D.C., January 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama has signed an order to lift the Mexico City policy, a Reagan-era policy that prohibits taxpayer funds from going to organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.

Population Action International, a pro-abortion group, praised Obama's decision, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."

"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance," said the group. "President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelse, however, strongly criticized Obama's move, saying: "America should respond to women's needs in developing countries with real assistance that also upholds their dignity, not by promoting or paying for abortions. I am disappointed by President Obama’s decision to bypass the will of American taxpayers and promote the radical agenda of Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby."

It was widely anticipated that Obama would sign the executive order yesterday, on the 36th anniversary of Roe. In 1993 former president Bill Clinton had revoked the policy on that day, while George Bush reinstated the policy on his first day in office in 2001, the day before the Roe anniversary.

Instead of signing the order yesterday, however, Obama instead issued a statement defending Roe, while speaking of the need to find “common ground” in the “divisive” and "sensitive" abortion debate.

In yesterday’s statement Obama explained, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.” Nevertheless, he said, “we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.”

While the decision not to revoke the policy yesterday was cautiously interpreted by some as evidence that Obama may not be as extreme on abortion as he has promised to be, and would not force taxpayers to pay for abortions, pro-life and pro-abortion organizations did not have to wait long for Obama to prove his solidly pro-abortion credentials.

"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

The Mexico City policy was considered by many to be one of the most effective pro-life policies of the Bush and Reagan administrations. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), one of the most pro-abortion organizations in the world, told the BBC today that under the Bush administration, thanks to the Mexico City Policy, the organisation had lost more than $100m (£73m) in funding.

//www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012309.html

[atprm]

jeanea:

remember -- thick ... like peanut butter.

[Jolie Rouge]

:tmi

:sigh

:stickyman:

:monkeys

:adore:

:goofy

:dancing2:

:sad

:joyman:

:stir

:s:

:y:

:drama

:call:

:nosy

:toilet:

:clown

:bawling:

:innocent

:drool

:call2:

:notworthy

:hahaha:

:pcguru:



I just love all these smiles ... I seem to remember a few that are "missing" ... :?:

[ElleGee]

Real mature...........

[janelle]

Obama in His Own Words: There Is No Doubt He Supported Infanticide
by Erick Erickson

08/25/2008


RedState.com reported last week they had uncovered the transcript of Barack Obama’s 2002 floor speech in opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (“BAIPA”).

The transcript makes clear Barack Obama opposed the BAIPA not because, as he claimed, it would encroach on abortion rights, but because the law would “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician.” It was too much of a burden, according to Obama, to ensure that a child, born alive, get medical care to sustain the child’s life.

Understanding both the timeline of Obama’s votes against the BAIPA and the language of the legislation makes it very clear that, regardless of what Obama and his defenders say, he did, in fact, support infanticide. Those are the facts, however unpleasant they may be.

Barack Obama first encountered the BAIPA in 2001. The law, pushed by Jill Stanek, a nurse who had been told to leave a live baby in a utility closet to die after an abortion, required life-sustaining treatment for a child in the event the child survived an abortion.


The law had three parts divided into three bills. S.B. 1093 provided that no abortion procedure which had the reasonable likelihood of producing a live-born child should be undertaken unless a second doctor was present to provide medical treatment for the child. S.B. 1094 created a cause of action if a child was born alive after an abortion and the abortionist harmed or neglected the child or failed to provide life-sustaining medical treatment. S.B. 1095 defined what a “born alive” infant was.

On March 30, 2001, prior to the vote, Obama spoke against the legislation. He was the only state senator to do so. Obama’s concern, in 2001, was that by defining what a “born alive” child was and giving that child equal protection, the law would be unconstitutional and, if not unconstitutional, in Obama’s words, “would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

“If this is a child,” Obama pondered. Despite his concerns, instead of voting no, Obama voted present on all three pieces of legislation.

On April 4, 2002, the three pieces of legislation came back to the Senate. This time, S.B. 1661 provided the cause of action, S.B. 1662 defined life, and S.B. 1663 was the substantive legislation requiring life sustaining treatment. S.B. 1663 had been modified to not require a second doctor be present for the abortion but, if a child were born alive, to get the child to a second doctor who could administer life sustaining treatment as soon as possible.

Barack Obama did not speak out on the floor of the Senate about S.B. 1661, the legislation that created a cause of action against a doctor. This is one of the few, if only, instances in Barack Obama’s short legislative record where he opposed creating a cause of action for litigation. Barack Obama, instead, spoke out against S.B. 1663, which required life-sustaining treatment for an infant born alive after an abortion. The legislation also prohibited abortions if the desire for an abortion was based solely on the child being of an undesired gender.

Rising on the floor, Obama said, “As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child -- however way you want to describe it -- is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.”

In effect, Obama made clear he believed the legislature should trust the abortionist who had botched the abortion to determine whether or not the baby would survive.

In 2002, unlike 2001, Barack Obama took the rare -- for him -- step of voting “no” against all three pieces of legislation instead of voting “present.”

No doubt, like in 2001, Obama still pondered the implication of what would happen “if this were a child.” So how was a “born alive” infant defined? Barack Obama, in his own words, noted the legislation would define a “born alive” child and “if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

Knowing how the legislation defined a child makes clear that Obama did support infanticide. The legislation, in 2002 pushed as S.B. 1662, defined a child as follows:

the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

In other words, a child who is breathing, has a beating heart, or shows voluntary muscle movement and who is fully outside the mother shall be considered a “born alive” child. That was too much for Barack Obama. He did not think that a child who was alive and outside the mother’s womb should be considered a child for purposes of giving the child equal protection rights if it was the mother and doctor’s intention that the child be killed.

That is not a stretch or inference of Barack Obama’s record. That is Barack Obama’s record. The facts make that uncomfortably clear.

In 2003, the BAIPA made its way through the Illinois General Assembly again, having died in 2001 and 2002 in the Illinois House of Representatives. Between 2002 and 2003, the Democrats took over the Illinois Senate. Barack Obama then chaired the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

Despite the BAIPA having passed the United States Congress with the support of Hillary Clinton, Ted Kenedy, Jerrold Nadler, and Barbara Boxer, and despite abortion groups likes Planned Parenthood and NARAL no longer opposing the legislation, Barack Obama still opposed it.

The law, contrary to Obama’s assertions, included abortion rights protections. Barack Obama himself voted in his committee to include those protections. But after voting to include abortion rights protections, Obama voted against the legislation in his committee. The BAIPA died in Obama’s committee in 2003, by a vote of 6-4.

Supporters of Barack Obama, such as Alan Colmes, say it is heinous and offensive to accuse Obama of supporting infanticide. David Brody of CBN, in denying Obama supports infanticide, writes, “Obama is a father of two young girls. You can bet that attacks like that will get him or any father riled up. That language seems to be way over the top. His critics can paint him as a pro-choice liberal. That’s fair but to go any further is really beyond the pale. Is Obama really sinister, a monster?” That is the gist of the Obama defense and is echoed by David Brody, Alan Colmes, and others. Barack Obama had children, therefore there is no way he could support infanticide.

Margaret Sanger and Josef Mengele both had children too. And somewhere in hell, Margaret Sanger is filling out her absentee ballot. Whether she casts it in New Orleans or Chicago won’t matter much in the final tally.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28189&keywords=Obama+%26+infanticide

[ElleGee]

Here we go with the abortion crap again....... gfg already

[Jolie Rouge]

I am so not surprised when last July Obama stated, “What difference does two or three minutes inside or outside the womb really make? One’s ‘late-term’ and the other’s ‘postpartum’. Who’s to say if the postpartum fetus is truly viable? Postpartum fetuses die all the time for all manner of reasons.”

Read the transcript here. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcrip...2/ST040402.pdf


When is a baby a "person" and no longer a "choice" ?

When adoption is presented as an alternative to abortion in these "discussions" - we hear how that would be too hard on the "mother" to carry a baby for nine months and then give it away; not knowing what became of it... :violin: So saying it is a fetus so there is no guilt in killing "it" is prefered ... or just leaving "it" under a bush in the park like yesterday's leftover lunch... :confused: I will never understand that POV.


they were not "wanted" ... they were not "people" ... they were disposable.

Wasn't this standard once applied to different minority groups, Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese immigrants ... See how far we have come ... now that standard can apply to anyone - regardless of race or gender...

[hesnothere]

But on a side note, how refreshing is it to have a President that can actually pronounce nuclear?

[ElleGee]

Nice.... You know you 2 could be a little less obvious that you want to get this thread closed.

[atprm]

But on a side note, how refreshing is it to have a President that can actually pronounce nuclear?

I agree -- that was a bit unnerving at times.

[hesnothere]

I am so not surprised when last July Obama stated, “What difference does two or three minutes inside or outside the womb really make? One’s ‘late-term’ and the other’s ‘postpartum’. Who’s to say if the postpartum fetus is truly viable? Postpartum fetuses die all the time for all manner of reasons.”

Read the transcript here. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcrip...2/ST040402.pdf


When is a baby a "person" and no longer a "choice" ?

When adoption is presented as an alternative to abortion in these "discussions" - we hear how that would be too hard on the "mother" to carry a baby for nine months and then give it away; not knowing what became of it... :violin: So saying it is a fetus so there is no guilt in killing "it" is prefered ... or just leaving "it" under a bush in the park like yesterday's leftover lunch... :confused: I will never understand that POV.



Wasn't this standard once applied to different minority groups, Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese immigrants ... See how far we have come ... now that standard can apply to anyone - regardless of race or gender...

Perhaps you need to read the actual article and not a transcript:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/erush/2007/er_07261.shtml

Yes, I know... Your reaction was similar to mine: "Good Lord! What's next: Endorsing postpartum abortion?" Will this be next?

"When you get right down to it," the Illinois Senator said before an audience at the recent Stem Cells R Us Annual Convention, "What difference does two or three minutes inside or outside the womb really make? One's 'late-term' and the other's 'postpartum'. Who's to say if the postpartum fetus is truly viable? Postpartum fetuses die all the time for all manner of reasons..."

As you can see, the author is speaking hypothetically.

In other, more simple words Obama never said this.

[ahippiechic]

Janelle...if you want to get an abortion debate started, take it to different board. Stop dragging that argument into threads here.

[krisharry]

Ah, Rush's trash talk doesn't bother me, in fact I find him amusing, how boring it would be without some of his idiotic commentary. But then again, not much bothers me.

[janelle]

I don't want to make it that either. My point----Limbaugh is a diversion from what Obama is doing and the White House is making hay with it.

Side note----I agree with Limbaugh if he says he hopes Obama fails---like Limbaugh said if it means passing Obama's agenda he wants it to fail. Socialism, big government telling us how to live and bankrupting us for generations to come. Limbaugh is small potatoes compared to that.

[speedygirl]

I don't want to make it that either. My point----Limbaugh is a diversion from what Obama is doing and the White House is making hay with it.

Side note----I agree with Limbaugh if he says he hopes Obama fails---like Limbaugh said if it means passing Obama's agenda he wants it to fail. Socialism, big government telling us how to live and bankrupting us for generations to come. Limbaugh is small potatoes compared to that.

Rush Limbaugh has been spitting out his low brow brand of commentary for years. This is nothing new.

[janelle]

So why is everybody surprised now??? Huffington Post---duh. Big story? NOT

[speedygirl]

No one's surprised and no one claims it to be a big story, lol, as many stories posted aren't "big stories" per se. Some just think it's disgusting and have that right to express their opinions on it. It's been all over the internet. The OP just happened to cite the Huffington Post. and "DUH"? Very profound.

[janelle]

It wasn't meant to be profound. DUH

[speedygirl]

It wasn't meant to be profound. DUH

Evidently. Perhaps I should have said mature? The bottom line is that Rush Limbaugh said something hateful, I stand by my comments regarding this and my right to comment on it. If you agree with his statements that is your right as well. Now, enough pettiness.

Finis...

[ahippiechic]

Defiantly Finis...