Rush Limbaugh Says Obama Helped Promote "Domestic Terrorism"

Yes, that's right. On Rush's show today, he asked "what Obama has done in his career?" He said Obama has done two things. I don't remember what the 2nd of the "two things" he's done in his career was, but I remember the first. He said he promoted "domestic terrorism".

This is the kind of garbage that is making this election a joke. I'm hoping we can get some Rush Limbaugh fan on this thread so that he/she can at least try to back this up for him (since Rush made no attempts to use any facts to back it up himself), so that we may have a positive discussion on the validity, or lack there of, of this claim.

I have no idea where to start looking to see where Rush came up with this idea. Any Rush fans here that care to elaborate?

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Sublime620]

Are you a Rush fan? Do you listen to his show? Did you hear this for yourself?

reply to post by Blueracer


I'm not a Rush fan. I just listen to the show.

I am a Democrat, but I need to listen to something "intellectual", though it's hard to call his show that.

So, yes, I heard this first hand while listening to his program.

reply to post by Sublime620


I've listened to his show too. But not a lot lately. I'm sure he had his reason(s) for saying it but I don't know exactly what off the top of my head.

It's interesting that you don't recall what the other reason was. Maybe you weren't giving his show 100% of your attention?

Originally posted by Sublime620
I have no idea where to start looking to see where Rush came up with this idea.

Probably the same place that Rush always comes up with his ideas ... I'd say but it would get bleeped. (hint - rhymes with 'his mutt')

Seriously - my GUESS is that from the Rush point of view - socialism = economic terrorism and therefore because Obama pushes a socialist agenda (Jimmy Carter II) and because Obama hangs with Ayers and such ... this is domestic terrorism.

That's just a guess. Only Rush would know.
WHy not call the show and ask?

Maybe he is talking about Obama's ties to that weatherunderground dude who bombed the whitehouse or something. I admit I haven't done all the proper research on his ties to this man, but I do know the man is now a repected professor at a college. So he can't be that much of a terrorist if he's passed a background check in order to teach at a college. Who knows where Rush gets his talking points. He doesn't discuss anything, he makes a statement, and then moves onto something else.

reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7



He justed mentioned Obama being endorsed by Hamas?......

reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7


Right. Probably Obama's association with Ayers and his later refusal to throw Ayers under the bus when it was all made public. It was the same way Obama handled the Rev. Wright issue, so no one should be surprised.

On Rush, I listened to him years ago when he was relatively new. But after awhile he became for me too strident, shrill and repetitive. I found myself agreeing, but still wanting to say, "OK, OK, OK ...". Sadly, I think the same thing is now happening to Hannity. I've noticed that he gets bugged about something and then tries to insert it into every discussion whether related or not.

My 2 cents ...



[edit on 10/2/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by Pinktip
He justed mentioned Obama being endorsed by Hamas?......

Yep story here . And 'endorsed' by Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea as well.

reply to post by Blueracer


To be honest, I don't know that he ever got to it. I remember him saying that, and then he went to commercial. So maybe he got to the other one after commercial break (and I was out of the car by then).

Not sure.

reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7


I think that's it. He dropped a name but I don't remember who it was. He didn't go into the details of what happened or what the domestic terrorism was.

It had something to do with killing cops.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Hmm, rhymes with mutt... what could it be?

reply to post by centurion1211


Great point. I think one of the main things that ruins news shows, of both sides, is not that they attack the other party, but that they only attack the other party. It ends up becoming a show where the only thing they do is whine about the other's actions and attack them.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by centurion1211
Sadly, I think the same thing is now happening to Hannity.

Why am I not surpised that you a fan of both Rush AND Hannity?
These champions of dumb-down-America conspiracy...

I am a fan of Glenn Beck . . .

Hannity, Rush, and Limbaugh, I am 50/50

I've dumped Hannity, cut Rush by 50%, a Little bit of O'Rielly, 95% Glennbeck and As much Savage as I can get............

Originally posted by Pinktip
I've dumped Hannity, cut Rush by 50%, a Little bit of O'Rielly, 95% Glennbeck

...and it's still a news equivalent of junk food.

Beck is more arrogant than Hannity, and I thought that was not possible.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by centurion1211
Sadly, I think the same thing is now happening to Hannity.

Why am I not surpised that you a fan of both Rush AND Hannity?
These champions of dumb-down-America conspiracy...

Pay attention, boy. I'm only going to say this once more.

I said above that I USED to listen to Rush YEARS AGO, and said why I don't anymore. I also said that I feel it is too bad Hannity seems to be headed the same way as Rush went.

Agreeing with Sublime ...

I also get really tired of it when any of these shows degenerate into shouting matches between four or more "pundits" all sharing the screen in little windows. Seems like that started in the 2004 election and sadly is becoming the norm for this one. I even remember when presidential debates had a format and decorum where the candidates took turns talking about the issues. In the last one, Obama and McCain ended up talking over each other and making strange facial expressions when the other one talked. .

Note to buddha: You'll notice that even though sublime620 and I may be diametrically opposed to each other politically, we can still find ways to agree instead just taking cheap shots when there is nothing to add.



[edit on 10/2/2008 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Pinktip
I've dumped Hannity, cut Rush by 50%, a Little bit of O'Rielly, 95% Glennbeck

...and it's still a news equivalent of junk food.

Beck is more arrogant than Hannity, and I thought that was not possible.

In your opinion.

No one has elected or appointed you to be in charge of deciding what the rest of us should consider good or bad television news. Try to remember that, will you?

Originally posted by centurion1211
No one has elected or appointed you to be in charge of deciding what the rest of us should consider good or bad television news. Try to remember that, will you?

That comment of yours is so redundant (we obviously post our own opinions here) that it makes me wonder about the extent of your capacity in applying logic; which would also explain why you listen to Rush and Hannity.

reply to post by Sublime620


Rush Limbaugh is to politics as what Richard C. Hoagland is to physics, and that is a whole bunch of nonsense with too many followers.

How many times does this guy have to put his foot in his mouth be he realizes he's nothing but a joke. He has no credibility and is a reason why I have no respect for politician related to him.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I dislike Rush also. That doesn't mean I want to sit here and argue over how bad he sucks.

The topic on hand is what Rush was talking about. Information on it. Relevance. Level of truth involved. Etcetera.

The old saying....cant kill the one carrying the message because of the message.

What is needed is evidence that will either support Rush's statement, or evidence that refutes it. Then there will be something to debate about.

As to Rush's program or his rep...its a radio show. Thats the key word...SHOW.

Look it up in the dictonary and it will refine the voice behind the microphone.

Cheers!!!!