Limbaugh
- Thread starter hedgehog
- Start date
dtb...stevie chooses to ignore the facts and the video showing dems in congress quashing republuican efforts to reel in fannie mae and freddie mac...
and those last 2 years that "bush got everything he wanted"(lol).....when everything went to hell?....they just happened to be the years that the dems controlled congress...
/shhh!...don`t wake stevie up...he`s having one of those really good "bds" dreams...
Weasel, Six years of complete Republican control caused this. Of course the Dems have to share the blame for not stopping the travisty that is Iraq as they said they would. Bush has bankrupt the country.dtb...stevie chooses to ignore the facts and the video showing dems in congress quashing republuican efforts to reel in fannie mae and freddie mac...
and those last 2 years that "bush got everything he wanted"(lol).....when everything went to hell?....they just happened to be the years that the dems controlled congress...
/shhh!...don`t wake stevie up...he`s having one of those really good "bds" dreams...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8
Is this one of the videos you are talking about Weasel. Open your eyes.
You neocon's can try to rewite history any way you want but thank God most of us have memories and do not rely on Right Wing radio.
In the address, the President says the following?
?Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on other issues: [...] broader home ownership, especially among minorities ? (applause)[...]?
And then later that same year, he gave the following speech in front of a back-drop that says ?A Home of Your Own? in which he promoted federal subsidies for low-income families trying to make a down-payment on a new home - the ?American Dream Initiative? - tax credits to encourage more low-income housing and an effort to encourage mortgage companies to dramatically ?reduce the barriers to home ownership,? known as ?America?s Home Ownership Challenge??
Watch the video, which is nothing more than Bush talking in 2002 or keep your head in the sand.
Is this one of the videos you are talking about Weasel. Open your eyes.
You neocon's can try to rewite history any way you want but thank God most of us have memories and do not rely on Right Wing radio.
In the address, the President says the following?
?Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on other issues: [...] broader home ownership, especially among minorities ? (applause)[...]?
And then later that same year, he gave the following speech in front of a back-drop that says ?A Home of Your Own? in which he promoted federal subsidies for low-income families trying to make a down-payment on a new home - the ?American Dream Initiative? - tax credits to encourage more low-income housing and an effort to encourage mortgage companies to dramatically ?reduce the barriers to home ownership,? known as ?America?s Home Ownership Challenge??
Watch the video, which is nothing more than Bush talking in 2002 or keep your head in the sand.
dtb...stevie chooses to ignore the facts and the video showing dems in congress quashing republuican efforts to reel in fannie mae and freddie mac...
and those last 2 years that "bush got everything he wanted"(lol).....when everything went to hell?....they just happened to be the years that the dems controlled congress...
/shhh!...don`t wake stevie up...he`s having one of those really good "bds" dreams...
Yep and he was just called out in this very thread--
"I don't know steve--we had thread on economy few weeks back and thought we settled that--
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/s...d.php?t=353499
--where facts on subject were presented and you didn't want any part of it--and now your showing your face with "your opinion" to the contrary?
Feel free to jump in above thread if you found some new facts that you feel support your opinion. "
-- and I'll be dipped in shit if he didn't kurby again--AND --come right back with the same ole :00x7
Did you see the video in my last post? Talk about facts? This is not some neocon bullshit. It is video. You really are a piece of work. How you can sit here and continue to lie is beyond me. WATCH THE VIDEO!
A video of Bush, in his own words, is not enough for you/ You continue to belittle everyone who has been right on the issues while you have been wrong. Amazing.I look forward to hearing you and your neocon buddy weasel coment on the video.
Last edited:
You reckon thats why O can't smell?
Wouldn't have brought it up--but you'll be reading Monday bout his brother getting busted/arrested for drugs--believe its his younger brother--but who knows--wonder what happen to his Aunt that was here illegally collecting welfare?
Third time Dogs. Are you going to just ignore it like you do all facts that are thrown your way? What do you think of Bush in that video. What is he saying? Something about homes for everybody or something? Come on Dogs, watch it. You can't continue to belittle everyone who called everything about Iraq and the results of SIX LONG YEARS OF BUSH AND HIS REPUBLICAN FRIENDS? Are you at some blog looking for an answer? Come out, come out where ever you are. :142smilie
<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2009/01/30/cttb.campbell.brown.limbaugh.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>
Commentary: A history lesson for Rush LimbaughStory Highlights
James Carville: Rush Limbaugh is now an advocate of bipartisan government
Limbaugh proposes splitting stimulus plan between Obama and GOP, Carville says
Carville: If that plan had been in effect in 2000, Iraq war might have been avoided
Editor's Note: James Carville, a Democratic strategist who serves as a political contributor for CNN, was the Clinton-Gore campaign manager in 1992 and political adviser to President Clinton. He is active in Democratic politics and a party fundraiser.
James Carville says Rush Limbaugh's new bipartisan strategy could have served the country well in 2000.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh, the moral and intellectual leader and most influential person in the Republican Party in the United States, wrote in the august op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, the acknowledged epicenter of right-wing thought, that President Obama should adopt a bipartisan solution to address the president's economic stimulus plan -- or as Limbaugh refers to it, "porkulus."
Limbaugh proposes that because the Democrats got roughly 54 percent of the votes to the Republicans' 46 percent, the stimulus package should be allocated along his definition of ideological lines, i.e. 54 percent towards infrastructure improvement and 46 percent toward tax breaks for Limbaugh and his friends.
He writes, "Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%.
"As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me."
Don't Miss
Commentary: A challenge to Rush Limbaugh
Senate braces for "hard slog" on stimulus bill
In Depth: Commentary
And he is serious. However much one may disagree with the current "daddy" of all Republicans (Beg to differ? See Rep. Phil Gingrey, who apologized last week for doubting Rush), you have to admire El Rushbo's principled stance and his well-known consistent ideology.
Why surely it seems like just yesterday that Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 (and arguably won the popular vote in Florida too).
Limbaugh must have called for the incoming Bush administration to allocate ideas based on the proportion of election returns. I'm sure President Bush and the Republicans in Congress graciously accepted their 49.5 percent share of everything. (Note: We would be much better off right now had this actually happened.)
With 50 percent of the federal government during President Bush's term, Democrats might have reduced the deficit (a truly Clintonista idea). Wall Street might have been more heavily regulated and K Street's lobbyists might not have been running the Capitol. Democrats might have invested money into infrastructure improvements so that bridges didn't collapse or entire cities flood.
We wouldn't have spent $350 million per day in Iraq. Heck, had Democrats been able to control 50 percent of the government from 2000 to 2004, we wouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place. There might have been more spending on education and a fully funded No Child Left Behind Act.
It is a remarkable time in American politics when a respected ideologue like Limbaugh can take to a hyperpartisan place like the pages of The Wall Street Journal, and deliver such a consistent message. We Democrats should congratulate Rush on the purity, intellectual integrity, and consistency of his positions
..............................................................
Rush :sadwave:
James Carville: Rush Limbaugh is now an advocate of bipartisan government
Limbaugh proposes splitting stimulus plan between Obama and GOP, Carville says
Carville: If that plan had been in effect in 2000, Iraq war might have been avoided
Editor's Note: James Carville, a Democratic strategist who serves as a political contributor for CNN, was the Clinton-Gore campaign manager in 1992 and political adviser to President Clinton. He is active in Democratic politics and a party fundraiser.
James Carville says Rush Limbaugh's new bipartisan strategy could have served the country well in 2000.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh, the moral and intellectual leader and most influential person in the Republican Party in the United States, wrote in the august op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, the acknowledged epicenter of right-wing thought, that President Obama should adopt a bipartisan solution to address the president's economic stimulus plan -- or as Limbaugh refers to it, "porkulus."
Limbaugh proposes that because the Democrats got roughly 54 percent of the votes to the Republicans' 46 percent, the stimulus package should be allocated along his definition of ideological lines, i.e. 54 percent towards infrastructure improvement and 46 percent toward tax breaks for Limbaugh and his friends.
He writes, "Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%.
"As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me."
Don't Miss
Commentary: A challenge to Rush Limbaugh
Senate braces for "hard slog" on stimulus bill
In Depth: Commentary
And he is serious. However much one may disagree with the current "daddy" of all Republicans (Beg to differ? See Rep. Phil Gingrey, who apologized last week for doubting Rush), you have to admire El Rushbo's principled stance and his well-known consistent ideology.
Why surely it seems like just yesterday that Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 (and arguably won the popular vote in Florida too).
Limbaugh must have called for the incoming Bush administration to allocate ideas based on the proportion of election returns. I'm sure President Bush and the Republicans in Congress graciously accepted their 49.5 percent share of everything. (Note: We would be much better off right now had this actually happened.)
With 50 percent of the federal government during President Bush's term, Democrats might have reduced the deficit (a truly Clintonista idea). Wall Street might have been more heavily regulated and K Street's lobbyists might not have been running the Capitol. Democrats might have invested money into infrastructure improvements so that bridges didn't collapse or entire cities flood.
We wouldn't have spent $350 million per day in Iraq. Heck, had Democrats been able to control 50 percent of the government from 2000 to 2004, we wouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place. There might have been more spending on education and a fully funded No Child Left Behind Act.
It is a remarkable time in American politics when a respected ideologue like Limbaugh can take to a hyperpartisan place like the pages of The Wall Street Journal, and deliver such a consistent message. We Democrats should congratulate Rush on the purity, intellectual integrity, and consistency of his positions
..............................................................
Rush :sadwave:
