Rush Limbaugh, "The U.S. military is now Meals on Wheels. It always is with Democrat presidents" C'mon, giddy keep defending this despicable piece of ****. It's the Christian thing to do.
This thread is hilarious.... :grin: I always love it when weak minded people take offense when someone speaks the truth...
I First and foremost it is no doubt that a terrible tragedy has befallen Haiti. Those poor people are certainly in dire straits and in need of immediate aid. And be sure that the citizens of the USA will be the largest givers in the flock. I do find it a bit odd that he comes out so quickly on this matter involving another country but yet it took him considerably longer after the most recent radical muslim attacker was thwarted by a citizen militia. In other news the UN has ponied up $10 million in aid, which by the way is also from the USA minus processing and handling fees.....
I don't know if you know this, but the US is the largest debtor to the UN and has not paid nearly anything near what it should be, you're looking at more money from countries like Botswana, Burkina Faso and Sri Lanka where I don't even think the concept of a "taxpayer" exists. You would think I was joking but I'm actually not. http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/honroll.pdf Notice how the US isn't even included in the table? That's because they've never contributed in full or on time in the last 20 years.
The guy who took action against the underwear bomber was a Dutch citizen and it wasn't initially known that the bomber was Muslim or associated with Al Qaeda.
nevermind comparing the two events is absolutely absurd, especially with regards to response time by our president. of course, bush screwed the proverbial pooch when a comparable natural disaster happened in his own country and it took him six days to respond to his clothes bomber (i'm guessing the sequel to my pet goat was pretty hard to put down), but to these people, facts are merely obstacles to scoring political points during a tragedy where thousands upon thousands were killed and even more lives made worse than they were before the quake.
You're surprised that were a bigger/faster reaction to a crisis that killed potentially 100,000 people (the equivalent of 30 9/11 attacks) and completely obliterated a country over a failed attack that did no damage at all? You're surprised that he reacted faster to something that was extremely clear and required immediate aid over something where the facts were unclear and that had no harm from a delay to get more information? Not surprising, coming from you.
You said Rush works in "shades of truth". Yet, there is no shade of truth to what he said here. There's no reason at all for Obama to try to win favor with the black community in the USA. He simply made that up. Therefore, for you, "shades of truth" = "making things up". Hope that clarifies.
The fact that television personalities can be considered as party leaders is just sad. Rush and Beck are walking caricatures. This is like saying that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Except that Democrats don't follow Matthews or Olbermann the way Republicans do Beck and Rush. But even if they did, Matthews and Olbermann aren't racists. We don't have anyone in our party like Rush and Beck. And if we did we'd denounce them, we wouldn't cheer them the way so many Republicans do their hate mongers.
Gee, I've met The Arbiter of Truth..... right on this forum!! Until we inherit Obama's presidential papers we can have no way of knowing the political calculation that went into his remarks. BTW, are you trying to assert that there was zero political calculation factored into the president of the US's much-anticipated remarks about a huge natural disaster some 800 miles off her shores? That would be a first.
First off, my message was that everyone (including Rush) works with shades of the truth because no one has a monopoly on the truth. Again my "shades of truth" comment had NOTHING to do with making stuff up; it had to do with incomplete understanding not intentional misrepresentation. That Obama has no reason to try and win favor with the black community is just your OPINION... as it is just Rush's opinion. ... but I gotta say that it is a new trend if a politician doesn't say something before the world without his/her handler's crafting a political calculation into the message.
if that's the case, then why does rush have an issue with it? also, how do you feel about the way rush treats callers that disagree with him? let's get you on the record. do you or do you not have a problem with rush said? you believe that every politician makes decisions using political calculations, so why the criticism here?
1. Rush has an issue with it because he doesn't like Obama's overall agenda and he tries to shine a glaring light on anything he thinks can bring down Obama's image. 2. I rarely listen to Rush. I haven't listened to him but for a handful of hours in the lasts six months... and that won't be increasing. I tried to catch him on Thursday coming back from lunch with my "liberal" friends only to discover that he's been replaced on the air in our market by Dave Ramsey. 3. I think Rush is overboard on most things but that's his job: to create controversy and attract listeners. I would never spout off what Rush did but neither do I characterize him as a racist hate-monger. There is a large safe zone in between those two extremes.
That clearly isn't true since you think having black friends or working with black people means someone isn't a racist.
1. As has been pointed out The UN aid isn't just US money. 2. You talking about how quickly he came out to act in the disaster relief is one of the stupidest things I've seen. It isn't just you who's doing it. Obviously Rush and others are as well. But since when is taking decisive quick action bad? That's what most people call leadership. I find it odd and even idiotic that people like you and Rush and whoever else somehow believes that Obama should wait and delay action while the suffering grows in Haiti. That is an idiotic course of action. As for the would-be underwear bomber, taking 3 days for Obama to speak out on? It's also a silly argument. Obama clearly had been finding facts in the case prior to those three days because when he did speak out on it, he knew all about the information we had on the guy, and the failure to prevent him from boarding the aircraft. Let me ask you about the consequences. What were the consequences that resulted of Obama not saying anything for 72 hours about the underwear bomber? What do you think the consequences would be about taking 3 days of people dying and suffering in Haiti while Obama took his time not acting so quickly? Sorry but that argument is probably one of the dumbest in the 21st century. I really can't believe people are making it.
