Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Now that is obviously a programmed answer on your part as it was an answer to a reporters question, so a speech writer could hardly have written it.Thank you for posting the full quote. I'll say this, I like obama's current speech writer more than others he's employed. Frankly, the whole text reinforces the hostile, defensive, how dare you question me tone of the final sentences. Most instructive.Well, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.
"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.
Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.
And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.
I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.
But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.
We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."
Vacations and golfYep. He has always been too busy to do his fucking job.
For real. Unless we count attacking the Constitution. He always has time for that.
Busy doing what? He said he has no intention in 'winning' vs ISIS... so what's he been doing besides Reggie?
-Geaux
I like also how Obama ( the king of popping off). Gets butthurt when others "pop off". He is such an immature pantywaist I can't even take him seriously.Poppycock. When criticized he pouts and runs away. He's not being asked to engage in a "rhetorical debate". He's being asked to explain what he is doing and why.He said he did not want a rhetorical debate. Why should he debate the issue in public with publicity-seeking politicians? The debate belongs in the Congress. Republicans control congress and that is where they have the constitutional authority to influence the "debatable" issues. Elected Republican leaders have access to the President and ways to transmit their ideas and thoughts. The President would be foolish and irresponsible to publicly debate issue's of grave national security with a pack of Presidential wanna be's in a hotly contested political campaign. There is no reason for him to answer to a dozen or more unelected individuals with questionable experience and motivation.
The last part of the President's comment will as usual, be omitted
No reason for him to answer questions from unelected individuals? Really? He doesn't even have to explain his actions to the "unelected" people he is working for?
Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
The View must have calledTMZ POTUS got another talk show to do
No that is the irrelevant textWell, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.
"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.
Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.
And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.
I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.
But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.
We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."
Here's the relevant text, moron:
But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."That's where he told anyone who objects to his scheme to fuck off.
Real presidential.
Naw... he just ignores them and let's them get murdered. Collateral damage and all that.No that is the irrelevant textWell, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.
"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.
Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.
And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.
I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.
But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.
We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."
Here's the relevant text, moron:
But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."That's where he told anyone who objects to his scheme to fuck off.
Real presidential.
That's where he said he didn't have time to play politics with American lives like the America hating GOP Right-wing nuts do.
He obviously struck a nerve with the America hating Right!
Hate to burst your bubble shithead but I write all my own stuff. Not so, your scout master. obama memorizes speeches when he is being interviewed. You can tell by the repetition. You HAVE been listening to him, haven't you?Now that is obviously a programmed answer on your part as it was an answer to a reporters question, so a speech writer could hardly have written it.Thank you for posting the full quote. I'll say this, I like obama's current speech writer more than others he's employed. Frankly, the whole text reinforces the hostile, defensive, how dare you question me tone of the final sentences. Most instructive.Well, since Bossy will not step in, I will post the exact quote in context for all the DittoRacists to read.
"With respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree I answered the question earlier. I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference -- because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.
Now, there are a few exceptions. And as I said, the primary exception is those who would deploy U.S. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in Iraq or now in Syria. And at least they have the honesty to go ahead and say that’s what they would do. I just addressed why I think they’re wrong. There have been some who are well-meaning, and I don’t doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of the dire humanitarian situation in Syria, who, for example, call for a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort.
And this is an example of the kind of issue where I will sit down with our top military and intelligence advisors, and we will painstakingly go through what does something like that look like. And typically, after we’ve gone through a lot of planning and a lot of discussion, and really working it through, it is determined that it would be counterproductive to take those steps -- in part because ISIL does not have planes, so the attacks are on the ground. A true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. And the bulk of the deaths that have occurred in Syria, for example, have come about not because of regime bombing, but because of on-the-ground casualties. Who would come in, who could come out of that safe zone; how would it work; would it become a magnet for further terrorist attacks; and how many personnel would be required, and how would it end -- there’s a whole set of questions that have to be answered there.
I guess my point is this, Jim: My only interest is to end suffering and to keep the American people safe. And if there’s a good idea out there, then we’re going to do it. I don’t think I’ve shown hesitation to act -- whether it’s with respect to bin Laden or with respect to sending additional troops in Afghanistan, or keeping them there -- if it is determined that it’s actually going to work.
But what we do not do, what I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow, in the abstract, make America look tough, or make me look tough. And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed, and I see a 25-year-old kid who’s paralyzed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people I’ve ordered into battle. And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may.
We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France. I'm too busy for that."
I don't like your programmer, BTW, maybe you should find a new one.
No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
You are not surprised because you are judging me with the same narrow minded ignorance as you judge Limbaugh. I feel sorry for you. Being alone with yourself must be a dark and horrible reality.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
Nope, that's not it.You are not surprised because you are judging me with the same narrow minded ignorance as you judge Limbaugh. I feel sorry for you. Being alone with yourself must be a dark and horrible reality.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
Cite the source where Rush calls obama a boy. I've never heard him say that and you are typically full of shit so I remain skeptical.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
Cite the source where Rush calls obama a boy. I've never heard him say that and you are typically full of shit so I remain skeptical.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
It's what the assholes believe and that's good enough for them. They just love to hate Rush.Cite the source where Rush calls obama a boy. I've never heard him say that and you are typically full of shit so I remain skeptical.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
Rush never said any such thing, if he had the liberal media would have exploded in celebration and used it to knock him off the air. Rush did call the clown a "man child" mocking Obama's juvenile behavior.
It's what the assholes believe and that's good enough for them. They just love to hate Rush.Cite the source where Rush calls obama a boy. I've never heard him say that and you are typically full of shit so I remain skeptical.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
Rush never said any such thing, if he had the liberal media would have exploded in celebration and used it to knock him off the air. Rush did call the clown a "man child" mocking Obama's juvenile behavior.
Jan 31, 2011Cite the source where Rush calls obama a boy. I've never heard him say that and you are typically full of shit so I remain skeptical.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
Jan 31, 2011Cite the source where Rush calls obama a boy. I've never heard him say that and you are typically full of shit so I remain skeptical.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
RUSH: Where is the appreciation in the radical capitals of the Middle East for our boy president who was so apologetic and so understanding and so promising and assuring that never again would the United States be a bully in that part of the world?
Yep. He is extremely immature. Got anything else?Jan 31, 2011Cite the source where Rush calls obama a boy. I've never heard him say that and you are typically full of shit so I remain skeptical.Why am I not surprised that you would not think your MessiahRushie calling a 50 year old ADULT black man a "boy" was racist?No, I'm not deaf. I simply don't automatically ASSUME racism when ordinary words such as boy or rat are used in a sentence. Obviously, you are one of those loons who thinks the wind whistling in his head is a dog whistle. Your claim that others are racist is not them. It's you.Then you must be deaf.edthecynic will need to explain his remark about racists. I don't think I qualify as a ditto head as I've only listened to Limbaugh a dozen or so times over the years. Nevertheless, I heard nothing to suggest he is a racist.
Your MessiahRushie has a number of "cute" ways of calling Obama a BOY as well as a number of ways of dehumanizing Obama as racists have a habit of doing. And don't tell me calling Obama a "rat" is a discussion of "policies" as Limbaugh claims he does every time he is rightfully called the racist he is.
RUSH: Where is the appreciation in the radical capitals of the Middle East for our boy president who was so apologetic and so understanding and so promising and assuring that never again would the United States be a bully in that part of the world?
