Obama on CNN: Congress Has Two Jobs, But Too ‘Worried About’ ‘Rush Limbaugh’ to Do Them

Congress doesn’t have a whole lot of core responsibilities,” Obama said. “One core responsibility is passing a budget, which they have not done yet. The other core responsibility that they’ve got is to pay the bills that they’ve already accrued.

This is code speak for pay for my corporate welfare program call Obama care that is their responsibility.

Now if passing budgets, and paying bills was congressional responsibility how the hell do we end up will all these asisine laws ?

Me thinks the complainer in chief doth protest too much.

Originally posted by sealing
As a former pill addict, I have to say I'm touched by
our republican ATSers who are defending Rush.

Normally conservatives aren't so keen on understanding.
Is it because it's Rush? If it was Obama who had the problem
would the hearts be as open?

And 6 years in to this administration if anyone can't see
how obstructionist this congress is because of Obama hate,
your bubble too thick to pop.

It's not Obama hate.

The only ones pushing that red herring are the Obama supporters.

The Congressional checks and balances in legislation are usually more about economics than anything else.

And Obama was very clever to use the line of BeeEss that some Republican 'friends' told him all this in 'private'.

It's the old 'third person' He said-She said tactic. Very effective.

I just don't understand why Democrats won't compromise ? Too bull-headed I guess.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

Bite your tongue on calling Rush a drug addict and doper. You're calling MY WIFE a drug addict in saying that and millions of others. Rush came to fall down the same hole SO MANY Americans today do with doctors gleefully prescribing you right into hard addiction then cutting you off like it's personally amusing.

Sometimes the hyperbole is downright hurtful and that aspect of it really is an ugly thing to say, given the true circumstances of what happened with it.

Rush had multiple prescriptions from multiple doctors. He was not only an addict but a criminal as well. if not for his personality status he would be in prison now.

reply to post by sealing


I am not a big fan of Rush, and I am not defending him. This is hilarious,
the issue here is that Obama is blaming Rush for Congress blocking his
already failed commie plots.

Its really pathetic that Obama is blaming a talk show host.

Oh the irony! Obama is powerless I say! Powerless!
He has been strongarmed by a radio talk show host!

reply to post by buster2010


Indeed... He did... and it's how that starts for people which is the point. Many way a man falls in life come from their own choices from start to finish. 100%. It's not necessarily that way for that area of life. I may not have believed it if I hadn't lived it with my own wife, but yes, they can have you on things like Oxy for years then, one day, without warning or options for help, say Nope! You're cut off... Good luck with things!

I'd consider personal bias in my opinions if I hadn't discovered my wife's experience to be common and increasingly so as time goes on. That's how to create an addict, literally by prescription.

In a world where even I cut precious few breaks in areas of personal responsibility? That is one where I pause for a look at circumstance.

Hate to break the news ..... but....

Backdrop to More Lenient Sentences

Interesting that so many bring up Rush's past drug habit, yet fail to identify any other popular radio personality that exemplifies the liberal ideology.

Obama is angry at Rush, but by proxy, is actually angry at the millions of people that listen to his show.

Suck it up, Obama.

reply to post by Happy1


Don't forget though, Obama is the greatest visionary since FDR, so maybe he hasn't decided that it's going to be his last term just yet.

Just try to imagine the possibilities that could accommodate the idea of keeping him in office: war, national crisis, martial law.

I can already hear the whining right before the next presidential election, "Why is there a two term limit?!", "We need him to stay so he can complete his work!", "There gone be riots if Obama can't stay in as Prez!", "It's racist to make him leave, he's doing such an amazing job!"

It's not like it's out of the realm of possibility with this guy and the firm grip he has over the mindless.

reply to post by beezzer


How about Obama's past [Insert Drug made from the leaves of the Coca plant] use? Funny how that gets ignored when the two of them are discussed.

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
reply to post by beezzer

 

How about Obama's past [Insert Drug made from the leaves of the Coca plant] use? Funny how that gets ignored when the two of them are discussed.

edit on 8/24/2013 by ProfessorChaos because: removed name of a narcotic

It's the standard dichotomy when partisan politics are involved.

reply to post by beezzer


I don't think Obama was saying he is angry at Rush. He is angry at Republican representatives putting so much clout into what Rush might say about them on the radio that it is hindering them from doing their job (the same can go for Democrats, too. I am just speaking about Obama's words right now).

What he was implying is that Republican representatives are so concerned about mid-term elections that they will do whatever a certain faction of their base wants rather than vote for what they believe is the right thing to do.

How does this relate to Rush? I believe Obama brought up Rush because he is a very outspoken politician that many voters listen to and make decisions on how to vote based on what he says on his show and Republicans know this. Everyone does. Obama saying the Republicans in congress are too worried about Rush was his way of saying that they are more worried if they make the wrong move, Rush (as an example) can turn an entire faction of Republicans against them, whether they think it was the right decision or not.

Now, I am not suggesting Obama was right. I am simply trying to clarify what I believe Obama was saying because I believe you and others are misunderstanding. You may not agree, but he wasn't being completely absurd in his logic.

And, as another poster pointed out, Congress does have certain responsibilities that are central to their purpose. Budgeting and appropriations. These are the core responsibilities laid out for Congress in the Constitution. Yes, they pass many other bills and that is part of their job, but when it comes time for budgeting and appropriations, I believe they ALL need to get their asses in gear and fix the problem rather than trying to pass other pieces of legislation that distract from their main responsibility.

It's like saying my core responsibility at work is to answer the phone rather than prepare financials for my clients.

With all that said, what I took away from what he said was that he is being incredibly devisive by using such rhetoric. Neither side wants to compromise. In fact, compromise is becoming a dirty word in congress. Ultimatums are the name of the game now at the risk of the economic health of our country and our citizens.

reply to post by nunya13


Point 1) Rush isn't a politician. He's a conservative pundit, but even that would be minimal if he didn't have such a large audience. And why does he have such a large audience? Because he is saying many things that people agree with. So the onus isn't on Rush, so much as it is on the people who listen to him.


Point 2) Compromise. The problem with compromise, is when you compromise on values, then they stop being values/principles and are simply talking points. To abase someone's values and principles down to such a level that they are nothing more than chips on a poker table illustrates the lack of backbone in today's modern political arena.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by nunya13

 

Point 1) Rush isn't a politician. He's a conservative pundit, but even that would be minimal if he didn't have such a large audience. And why does he have such a large audience? Because he is saying many things that people agree with. So the onus isn't on Rush, so much as it is on the people who listen to him.

I agree. This is pretty much exactly what I said. That Obama is blaming Republicans for being too worried about what Rush will say to his audience if they do something wrong, regardless if they felt it was right.

Point 2) Compromise. The problem with compromise, is when you compromise on values, then they stop being values/principles and are simply talking points. To abase someone's values and principles down to such a level that they are nothing more than chips on a poker table illustrates the lack of backbone in today's modern political arena.

I didn't say one must always compromise. But we won't get anywhere if we throw any and all compromising out the window in favor of absolutes and ultimatums. We live in a society. If both sides present nothing but ultimatums, then we will never get anywhere.

I wholeheartedly disagree that being willing to compromise represents a lack of backbone. We'll have to leave it at that, I presume.

Originally posted by HanzHenry


a drug addict is someone addicted to drug! through WEAK SELF DISCIPLINE.. ANYONE can quit cold turkey.. SOME DO! the STRONG.. the weak don't have the intestinal fortitude.

You do know that quitting cold turkey is really dangerous don't you? Just look at alcohol. A serious alcoholic quits cold turkey and has seizures and maybe dies. Cold turkey is really not an option for high powered narcotics. That's just plain stupidity. People trust their doctors and they take the meds prescribed. The doctor is a drug pusher and people trust him. It's not as simple as you want to portray it.

Obama needs to ditch this obsession with his critics, if he spent half as much time actually doing what he was put into office to do as opposed to complain about everyone else, he may have accomplished something in 2 TERMS. I'll admit, as a conservative (not a republican) I actually had high hopes for Obama going into that first term, only to be absolutely crushed, his promises of transparency sounded so great following Bush, yet we've gone a different direction there haven't we? All I've come to realize is that Obama is the greatest con artist to ever hold the office of president. This is just more of that, plain and simple.

reply to post by xuenchen

Thanks for the civics lesson and the lecture from the Harvard Law classroom !!

Actually it's just word for word the United States Constitution, but I am not surprised by your attitude, many seem to think that if it isn't the last half of the 2nd Amendment it really isn't in the US Constitution. This is evidenced by those who mistake what Treason is.

But I guess those checks and balances always seem to get in the way of a steam engine on a one way street

Greatest system in the world.

reply to post by xuenchen


Yea, Republicans don't have any idea what the word compromise means anymore. That's what's been killing the GOP Budget, zero cooperation.

Maybe if the GOP tried something called compromise, they would get some of the things they want cut, some things they don't want cut, and a deal would get hammered out.

Without any compromise, there is just one political party trying to bully the country.

Originally posted by HauntWok

Yea, Republicans don't have any idea what the word compromise means anymore. That's what's been killing the GOP Budget, zero cooperation.

Maybe if the GOP tried something called compromise, they would get some of the things they want cut, some things they don't want cut, and a deal would get hammered out.

Without any compromise, there is just one political party trying to bully the country.

This is just hypocritical. Democrats have not compromised any more than Republicans have. Anyone remember this comment by Obama? Hmmm??? " We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” Yeah that sounds really nice. He was compromising then, wasn't he? It doesn't matter anyway. Both parties are corrupt, but the constant bashing of one party is nothing more than throwing stones while living in glass houses. Division, division, division.

Who was the last democratic president before Obama? Clinton.

Did Clinton ever do anything to imply that Rush Limbaugh was an actual danger in one form or another, or that his having an opinion on the radio was messing up politics?

Why yes, yes he did, and I don't why I never see this mentioned.

Just after the OKC bombing -- and that's an entirely other topic for question frankly -- Clinton specifically said, and I do not have the quote, I just remember it affecting me so profoundly that I never forgot it -- that basically, terrorism was being caused, incited or furthered by people like Rush on the radio, and that should be stopped.

I was freaking out because I was thinking they were going to use it to totally kill the first amendment over it.

But the instant response to it was bad and it almost instantly disappeared -- news outlets never talked of it again and you'd think it never even happened. Bizarre!

I see Rush continues to haunt the liberal presidents, all this time later.

Good.

reply to post by RedCairo


I personally believe that liberals NEED Rush.

Because what Rush says, conservatives believe, so it's advantageous for people on the left to know what the right wing of this country is being told what to think.

Without Rush at the right wing helm, conservatives wouldn't know what to think, or who to hate. Plus he gives them good talking points to use, especially hannity. Once you got both of those commentators in agreement on their hate, the rank and file parrots fall in line.

All one has to do, is get yourself a copy of the transcripts of Hannity and Rush and swing on over to the political madness forum, and you get what I mean.

Liberals need this. Otherwise they would have to face off against conservatives who (while rare) have a brain of their own. The nutjobs would get marginalized quickly as their rhetoric would fly off the rails. And what would be left are conservatives who think for themselves and can generate clear concise thoughts using logic and reason.

So the left needs Rush, it keeps the whole right wing nutty enough to make fun of, but unified enough to still be a pain in the ass to everyone.

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
reply to post by HauntWok

 

That is just more of your leftist crap.

He cited the United States Consititution? You might have jumped the shark if that appears "leftist" to you.

Originally posted by Diisenchanted
You yourself know that obamacare didn't come out of the house.

????????