Obama VS Limbaugh

[SKINPIG]

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

 

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

 

Are we to ONLY listen to Obama's side of everything? Is our president so insecure he's afraid of Rush?

 

What do you think of this?

[gchs_uk9]

I think he's right. I think Republicans shouldn't spend too much time listening to blowhards like Rush or chicken-littles like Hannity, just as Democrats shouldn't listen to left-wing nutjobs either. Both sides in Congress (and people in general) should make the best possible decision on over issue without being driven/prompted by people on TV/radio. Remember, the main objective of people like Rush is to stir the pot, garner listeners, and collect money. He's not a staunch Republican for free.

[RowdyRedRam]

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

 

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

 

Are we to ONLY listen to Obama's side of everything? Is our president so insecure he's afraid of Rush?

 

What do you think of this?

Limbaugh is a "hater" and his program gets all of its steam from creating friction between the two sides. This friction often corrupts what could be better government.

 

Obama is correct that you can't follow the preachings of a antagonistic drug addict and expect to get government running smoothly.

[Hearsay]

Apparently, to Obama, Rush Limbaugh is not a person worthy of inclusion in his new inclusive American vision. All persons ar equal, but some are more equal than others. He spent his campaign telling everyone that because he had social contacts with Wright, Rezko, etc. that that did not mean that he bought into their politics, but here he presupposes that GOP leaders who listen to Rush buy into his.

 

If you think about this clearly, it is ludicrous that the President of the United States is actually mentioning Rush Limbaugh during executive addresses to members of Congress.

[Hearsay]

Limbaugh is a "hater" and his program gets all of its steam from creating friction between the two sides. This friction often corrupts what could be better government.

 

Obama is correct that you can't follow the preachings of a antagonistic drug addict and expect to get government running smoothly.

 

However, Michael Moore is a "truth-seeker" whom "opens our eyes" to the perversions going on in right-wing Washinton.

[Hearsay]

I think he's right. I think Republicans shouldn't spend too much time listening to blowhards like Rush or chicken-littles like Hannity, just as Democrats shouldn't listen to left-wing nutjobs either. Both sides in Congress (and people in general) should make the best possible decision on over issue without being driven/prompted by people on TV/radio. Remember, the main objective of people like Rush is to stir the pot, garner listeners, and collect money. He's not a staunch Republican for free.

 

What is the main objective of paid lobbyists whom they all listen to? Everyone has an agenda, there is no spectrum of acceptableness for our officials to listen to.

[rockmom]

However, Michael Moore is a "truth-seeker" whom "opens our eyes" to the perversions going on in right-wing Washinton.

 

 

Hearsay, with all due respect, I don't see where RRR either said or inferred that. :confused:

[Clyde]

Apparently, to Obama, Rush Limbaugh is not a person worthy of inclusion in his new inclusive American vision. All persons ar equal, but some are more equal than others. He spent his campaign telling everyone that because he had social contacts with Wright, Rezko, etc. that that did not mean that he bought into their politics, but here he presupposes that GOP leaders who listen to Rush buy into his.

 

If you think about this clearly, it is ludicrous that the President of the United States is actually mentioning Rush Limbaugh during executive addresses to members of Congress.

 

I agree with your last statement. I'm not sure that's a wise move for several reasons.

 

However, I disagree with the premise of the rest. He didn't say "if you listen to Rush you are wrong." The key word would be "just." No different than if Obama had "just" listened to those you mentioned.

 

It would seem to me that his point deals with extremes. If you "just" listen to the extreme (on either side) you're not doing the work for the majority of the people.

 

That's how I read it.

[SKINPIG]

I think he's right. I think Republicans shouldn't spend too much time listening to blowhards like Rush or chicken-littles like Hannity, just as Democrats shouldn't listen to left-wing nutjobs either. Both sides in Congress (and people in general) should make the best possible decision on over issue without being driven/prompted by people on TV/radio. Remember, the main objective of people like Rush is to stir the pot, garner listeners, and collect money. He's not a staunch Republican for free.

 

He didn't mention anything about not listening to anyone other than Rush though. I notice you only mention Rush and Hannity yourself. What "left-wing nutjobs" are not worthy in your opinion?

 

I consider myself conservative...Am I supposed to ignore my values now that Obama is POTUS or am I supposed to submit to his way?

[gchs_uk9]

What is the main objective of paid lobbyists whom they all listen to? Everyone has an agenda, there is no spectrum of acceptableness for our officials to listen to.

 

Good point. I was really speaking as much about regular citizens as I was Obama/elected leaders. Too often we flock to Rush or Sean or Michael Moore to develop our views when we should make decisions for ourselves. Some of my opinions are Republican, some are Democratic; but there is no room for me on the shows/films of those mentioned above.

[RowdyRedRam]

However, Michael Moore is a "truth-seeker" whom "opens our eyes" to the perversions going on in right-wing Washinton.

I agree that he should have balanced the speech by listing an equally troublesome liberal. But I don't believe he was wrong in what he was saying.

[Hearsay]

Hearsay, with all due respect, I don't see where RRR either said or inferred that. :confused:

 

He resorted to solve-nothing name calling of a person whom people on the right listen to. So I resorted to a roll-eyes smiley to a person whom people on the left listen to.

 

If Obama can stand there and tell the other side not to listen to one of their personalities, I think he needs to note the same thing for Democrats listening to Moore and other left-wing muckrakers.

[RowdyRedRam]

I consider myself conservative...Am I supposed to ignore my values now that Obama is POTUS or am I supposed to submit to his way?

If your values are to create paranoia, fear, and hatred of the other party, then yes you need to ignore your values if you want to get things done in government.

.

[Hearsay]

I agree with your last statement. I'm not sure that's a wise move for several reasons.

 

However, I disagree with the premise of the rest. He didn't say "if you listen to Rush you are wrong." The key word would be "just." No different than if Obama had "just" listened to those you mentioned.

 

It would seem to me that his point deals with extremes. If you "just" listen to the extreme (on either side) you're not doing the work for the majority of the people.

 

That's how I read it.

 

Fair enough. I don't believe that is what Obama meant, but his speech writer did a nice job by including that word.

 

However, I have an issue with what Obama may refer to as "extremes." There seems to be a feeling that we must compromise on all issues in order to not be considered extreme. There are some issues that simply are not something to compromise on, and I don't think its extremist so much as principled.

[Hearsay]

Good point. I was really speaking as much about regular citizens as I was Obama/elected leaders. Too often we flock to Rush or Sean or Michael Moore to develop our views when we should make decisions for ourselves. Some of my opinions are Republican, some are Democratic; but there is no room for me on the shows/films of those mentioned above.

 

That's right.