That's a tired excuse and a tired, juvenile name.

 

Yes, he did. But you can't have it both ways. I hear all of the time of how people are "fearing for our country" and how (all of a sudden) we need to "pray for our country" because of the changes that President Obama is making. Then, in the next breath, that tired retort of "no change" comes out.

 

Really, it's inconsistent and the scientist in me is bothered by inconsistencies.

 

Yes, I too am tired of the inconsistencies. The inconsistencies of Obama and he left leaning elitists. They talk of how the wealthly business owners are dumping on workers by earning so much and their lavish lifestyles. Yet when it comes to them, no you can't say anything because their socialist do-gooders spending tax money on all sorts of government programs.

It is just another reason for smaller government, no matter who is in charge. Yes that means reducing the welfare state, wasteful education spending at the federal level, bloated government bureauracy and overstaffed congressional offices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/rush-limbaugh-media-givin_n_674071.html

 

Let me preface this with the fact that I haven't read the transcript to see what he said prior to the clip. I know in the past his quotes aren't as serious or as offensive as they initially seemed once context was added.

 

With that said I doubt there's any context that can change his claim here.

 

I have to ask Clyde...Why on earth do you care what Rush says? You NEVER comment on his interesting comments, so why this?

Yes, I too am tired of the inconsistencies. The inconsistencies of Obama and he left leaning elitists. They talk of how the wealthly business owners are dumping on workers by earning so much and their lavish lifestyles. Yet when it comes to them, no you can't say anything because their socialist do-gooders spending tax money on all sorts of government programs.

It is just another reason for smaller government, no matter who is in charge. Yes that means reducing the welfare state, wasteful education spending at the federal level, bloated government bureauracy and overstaffed congressional offices.

 

Right on, Right on, Right on!

From the New Times Link

 

But the whole family (meaning the President and Family) will travel later this month to the Gulf Coast for a few days and then to Martha's Vineyard for 10 days.

 

Laura Bush took solo vacations without her husband each year of George W. Bush's presidency, likewise traveling with her Secret Service detail on a government plane to meet friends for camping and hiking excursions to national parks. But it never generated the sort of furor Mrs. Obama trip's is causing, at least in part because visiting national parks in the United States is not as politically sensitive.

 

Yes, I too am tired of the inconsistencies. The inconsistencies of Obama and he left leaning elitists. They talk of how the wealthly business owners are dumping on workers by earning so much and their lavish lifestyles. Yet when it comes to them, no you can't say anything because their socialist do-gooders spending tax money on all sorts of government programs.

It is just another reason for smaller government, no matter who is in charge. Yes that means reducing the welfare state, wasteful education spending at the federal level, bloated government bureauracy and overstaffed congressional offices.

 

Of course, this has nothing to do with my post. Yet, turning it into something else seems to be entirely too common around here.

From the New Times Link

 

But the whole family (meaning the President and Family) will travel later this month to the Gulf Coast for a few days and then to Martha's Vineyard for 10 days.

 

Laura Bush took solo vacations without her husband each year of George W. Bush's presidency, likewise traveling with her Secret Service detail on a government plane to meet friends for camping and hiking excursions to national parks. But it never generated the sort of furor Mrs. Obama trip's is causing, at least in part because visiting national parks in the United States is not as politically sensitive.

 

 

Why is visiting a country in which we are allies with "politically sensitive"?

Of course, this has nothing to do with my post. Yet, turning it into something else seems to be entirely too common around here.

 

Amazing, ain't it!

 

I would say it's straight out of the Cons' playbook, but I'm pretty sure I could predict the response to that. So I won't say it.

 

We went, in the blink of an eye, from a thread (presumably) about a racially insensitive comment to, to quote the Monty Python show, something completely different.

 

Shame on them for visiting the political hotbed of Spain. What's next - Great Britain?

This will likely be the only post in this thread I make. Taxpayer expense for security, transportation an so on would pretty much be incurred, to some lesser extent, during a U.S. vacation and I'm pretty sure similar trips have been made by past First Ladies during bad economic times. I just don't see this as much of an issue. This is Rush doing his usual and most of you know how I feel about Rush.

Dear sweet Lord, we've got an oil spill, Iran trying to get nukes, North Korea going crazy, an economic system on the brink, hemorraging jobs right and left and what does Limbaugh fuss about? The First Lady taking her daughter on vacation to Spain. Unbelievable.

 

Dear sweet Lord, we've got an oil spill, Iran trying to get nukes, North Korea going crazy, an economic system on the brink, hemorraging jobs right and left and Clyde and Zoot Soup are worried about what Rush says. Wow! Unbelievable.

Dear sweet Lord, we've got an oil spill, Iran trying to get nukes, North Korea going crazy, an economic system on the brink, hemorraging jobs right and left and Clyde and Zoot Soup are worried about what Rush says. Wow! Unbelievable.

 

Rush couches everything under the guise of the "drive by media." He has a fixation on race and IMO he plays to those member of his vast audience that are easy touches. How many times can the man comment on race, do stereotypical imitations, link Obama to people like Marion Barry, and use inflammatory comments before someone says "maybe Rush has a race issue?"

 

Now some of you will say "I'm too smart for that ploy." Great. It doesn't take many that are not capable and look to Rush to get what they're supposed to be upset about today due to their inability to think on their own. Its a tight rope he's walking.

 

 

 

As to your question about more serious concerns, I comment on those in their own threads.

This will likely be the only post in this thread I make. Taxpayer expense for security, transportation an so on would pretty much be incurred, to some lesser extent, during a U.S. vacation and I'm pretty sure similar trips have been made by past First Ladies during bad economic times. I just don't see this as much of an issue. This is Rush doing his usual and most of you know how I feel about Rush.

 

:thumb:

 

I hope people realize anytime Michelle Obama travels for the rest of her life she will be under Secret Service protection on the taxpayer's dime.

Limbaugh often speaks tongue in cheek, and I would think most of his listeners understand his sarcasm & "humor"? I believe his point is that with all the problems this country has, that maybe Obama may want to spend a little more time doing his job, and less time vacationing, partying, golfing, entertaining celebs at the White House, etc. Four vacations in the last several weeks is a little excessive and would get most people fired.

 

At a time when you have a sitting President suing states, and criticizing corporations for having meetings in Las Vegas (to the extent the mayor thumbs his nose at the Prez when he visits); an ultra-expensive trip to Spain by the First Lady and her posse is a little over the top, and at worst in poor taste?? I could care less where Michelle Obama vacations (unless I'm paying for it), but as a taxpayer in this economy; I'd have rather seen them vacation in the US. Limbaugh is definitely over the top sometimes, but his premises are often right on the money--Far more so than the Huffington Post!!

This will likely be the only post in this thread I make. Taxpayer expense for security, transportation an so on would pretty much be incurred, to some lesser extent, during a U.S. vacation and I'm pretty sure similar trips have been made by past First Ladies during bad economic times. I just don't see this as much of an issue. This is Rush doing his usual and most of you know how I feel about Rush.

 

Agree with the security expense issue, but you must agree that the media reaction (fever pitch negativity) to the Bush's trips to his ranch in Texas were a little different than the Obama's exploits??

Agree with the security expense issue, but you must agree that the media reaction (fever pitch negativity) to the Bush's trips to his ranch in Texas were a little different than the Obama's exploits??

 

But he once went for 5 weeks. :lol:

 

But I'm a total proponent of presidential vacations. The guys and their families need to get away from DC to maintain some sanity. And it's not like they flip their cells off and go incommunicado. They get daily briefings and are essentially always "on call". It's a tough job. One I wouldn't want, anyway.

:thumb:

 

I hope people realize anytime Michelle Obama travels for the rest of her life she will be under Secret Service protection on the taxpayer's dime.

 

Not 70 of them and she also wouldn't be spending $150,000 to take Air Force Two. I wonder how much her friends kicked in for gas?