Rush Limbaugh was at it again on Tuesday, "confusing" Barack Obama with Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, and referring to the president as "one angry guy -- his wife is angry as well."
Limbaugh went on to "accidentally" refer to Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, as "Barack Ogabe."
"The standard of living has increased in places where there are basic free markets," Limbaugh said. "Where there aren't, of course the standard of living has declined, such as Zimbabwe... now run by Robert Ogabe. Ah -- it's Mugabe.
I was confusing him with a well-known Kenyan named Barack Ogabe. This is Robert Mugabe."
LOL! I guess that bit of what he thinks passes as incisive commentary helps Limbaugh deal with Mr. Obama's high approval ratings. He apparently gets some sort of thrill running through his chubby pink loins when he makes up stories about Mr. and Mrs. Obama. The reality is that Mrs. Obama is admired and quite popular, and President Obama is well regarded as a cool and even-tempered man, with a nimble intellect and a stable personality.
In short, Mr. Obama is everything Limbaugh could never be.
It takes a really sharp mind to be able to draw comparisons between people as different from each other as Mugabe and President Obama--so, of course, Limbaugh couldn't do it. Instead he makes a "mistake" involving their names; and while chuckling to himself over his junior-high school level wit, continues to feed his Dittoheads more third-rate slop, in which they so eagerly wallow.
Even if a swine gets its own radio show and maintains a large audience, it’s still, afterall, a swine.
In short, Mr. Obama is everything Limbaugh could never be.
It takes a really sharp mind to be able to draw comparisons between people as different from each other as Mugabe and President Obama--so, of course, Limbaugh couldn't do it. Instead he makes a "mistake" involving their names; and while chuckling to himself over his junior-high school level wit, continues to feed his Dittoheads more third-rate slop, in which they so eagerly wallow.
Even if a swine gets its own radio show and maintains a large audience, it’s still, afterall, a swine.
21 comments:
That picture of him there is quite flattering; did he get veneers?
If free markets lead to increases in the standard of living..
then since the US standard of living has dropped it only logically follows that we do not have free markets...
Of course Rush's standard of living has done wonderfully....
Right now my standard of living is being manipulated by Wall Street...
A wise man told me we need to regulate the markets in order to save capitalism from itself.
Lovely teeth. All he needs now is lipstick.
"Throughout History, socialism has had to step in to save capitalism."
Ralph Nader
Even conservative economists agree that an infusion of cash from the government is needed now.
It's important to know what the opposition is saying and doing, but I think you give to much importance and time to the old blow hard.
I know, it's hard to resist revealing how retarded Rush's thinking is. Do you think he has used to many drugs? Maybe?
He used too many of the wrong drugs and not enough of the right ones....
He could benefit from some weed or LSD...
You're still unable to defend Obama's actions, so you're attacking a talk-show host. Well, shoot, if I was in your position, I'd change the subject as often as I could.
You're the one who thinks I need to defend Mr. Obama's actions, not I, Gordon. LOL!
I think it's funny, really, how you and some of your friends (not the crazies who sometime come here) try to get me to run this blog the way you guys think I should.
And I will go after a jerk like Limbaugh so long as he continues to act like a swine.
shaw
you don't have to defend what you want to blog on. where do people got off going to your blog and telling you what to do?
these people controlled the presidency and congress, got kicked out and now want to control liberal blogs?
Rush Limbaugh is emblematic of much that is wrong with this country and I appreciate your tracking his more colorful ravings as I certainly don't have the time or the wherewithal to read very much of what the pathetic creature writes let alone listen to his radio program(s).
It's important that an entertainer with an audience of millions who has the annoying habit of lying on a regular basis be held accountable.
If you believed in what he's doing, you'd blog about it. Sixty-plus posts since Feb 1 and you've praised his policies what, six times? Writing "oh the polls love him" doesn't count.
It's okay, Shaw. One by one his worshippers in the media are waking up, also. You like to say, "oh, Bush had deficits too!" But Obama's going to blow by eight years of Bush's spending in just 20 months!
Ten trillion in deficit spending is enough to make anyone want to change the subject.
If you believed in what he's doing, you'd blog about it.--Gordon
Really? Blogging would be proof of my belief in what President Obama's doing? How about working with the DNC so that critical elections where Democrats are running against Republicans will get my $$$ or my volunteering to make sure that the Democrat wins?
Or continuing to call my representatives in Congress and tell them to support Mr. Obama's policies, or volunteering at local soup kitchens to help feed the people who've been hit the hardest by this economic meltdown? You know, like Mr. Obama has encouraged all of us Americans to do?
Also being aware of the many ways to become more energy efficient, like giving up my car--and because I live in a city with many public transportation choices, I can do that.
There are many ways of showing support for Mr. Obama. For the first time in my life, I contributed money to a presidential campaign, and did so starting a year ago right up until the end of October 2008. I put my money where my hopes were because I believe in Mr. Obama and his ideas for this country.
As for the trillions of dollars that will have to be spent to get this country back on its feet, after decades of neglect and insufficient courage to face our domestic problems, well yes, we will have to spend money, lots of it, or sink.
Doing nothing and saying "NO!" is not a solution.
When a house is in disrepair and falling apart from neglect, you don't rehabilitate it by locking the doors and sulking in a room, hoping it'll fix itself.
We found the trillions of dollars necessary to invade Iraq and continue that war for 6 years. Or was that trillions of dollars better spent over there?
We are a very wealthy nation, we can get out of this mess, we just need the will and the smarts to do it. And some really, really, good regulatory laws put in place to make sure the criminals who got us into this mess never have the opportunity to screw us again.
See, all that effort you put in to supporting Obama has paid off: you've learned how to use his favorite rhetorical trick, the straw man.
"Doing nothing and saying "NO!" is not a solution."
I also can't help but notice that all of the efforts in support of Obama were before he took office, not after; except perhaps calling your representatives.
Seriously, Shaw, I'm not criticizing you for having the sense to recognize that Obama has turned out to be very different from what you had hoped, and not in good ways. It's not like I haven't been disappointed by politicians I've supported. I'm older than you, and it's happened to me many times.
I suspect I was less emotionally invested in any of them than you were with Obama. I hope you'll continue to volunteer as you have, because the vulnerable will always be with us, and personal efforts to help are always more effective.
You don't, after all, want to end up a cynical old bastard like me!
Seriously, Shaw, I'm not criticizing you for having the sense to recognize that Obama has turned out to be very different from what you had hoped, and not in good ways.
Um, Gordon, could you please point out exactly where I've said that? Or was it just that little voice in your head speaking to you again?
My not commenting on Mr. Obama's policies is, for you, an admission on my part of being disappointed with him?
Hoooookay.
*tip-toes quietly out of the room*
shaw said: "We found the trillions of dollars necessary to invade Iraq and continue that war for 6 years. Or was that trillions of dollars better spent over there?"
How many trillions exactly? I keep finding a figure given that is far less than even one trillion. Here is one place. This and the other places tend to be anti-Iraq War sites, not Bush apologists. Is there another source you are using?
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq.[5]
Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[6] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. They are conceptually simple, even if occasionally technically complicated. A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side. Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[6]
Source
Shaw,
You know how it is. Actions (and lack of) speaking loudly, and all that. I just want you to know that I'm here for you, as you begin that long, treacherous climb into the light of freedom and reason. I'm serious about that.
On your Iraq costs, you're mixing a lot of different fruits in that basket. Direct costs, projected interest costs, and costs to the economy are all very different things.
But look at the benefits. Obama gets to claim credit for winning a war that he once claimed was lost, and as a side, the world gets a second functioning (albeit imperfect) democracy in the middle east.
I just want you to know that I'm here for you, as you begin that long, treacherous climb into the light of freedom and reason.
I'm serious about that.
It's a mercy to hear those comforting words, Master Gordon. Lord-a-mighty, where would a po' girl be without manly men protectin' our weak li'l ole minds. I dare say we'd all be jus' thinkin' our own funny li'l thoughts and havin' our own foolish ideas.
Fiddle-de-dee.
I'm so much obliged to y'all for your solicitious and gracious offer to point me in the "right" direction. It just dills my pickle, honey.
Why left to my own devices, and quicker than green grass through a goose, I may have actually found the correct way myself! Silly ole me!
Gordon fantasized:
'But look at the benefits. Obama gets to claim credit for winning a war that he once claimed was lost, and as a side, the world gets a second functioning (albeit imperfect) democracy in the middle east.'
Democracy? Iraq?
Not in your lifetime.
Too bad, Arthurstone. It's already happened. I know you prefer dictatorships, but you've lost this one.
Post a Comment