I have to disagree with Rush Limbaugh


#1

I was listening to the radio and the topic of discussion was the protection of the president’s children. As much as I dislike the president I feel that this was a subject he was wrong on.

The president is vulnerable from different sources including the children so making this a gun issue really is not appropriate.

The other day I read that Obama had given himself lifetime protection and by default past presidents. As paranoid as he is I am sure he thinks that those “racists” are out to get him. I would think he would have more to worry about with the Black Panthers in the neighborhood.

I did hear that he is thinking of settling in Hawaii as his home after his joke of a presidency is over.


#2

Yes he bought a $35 million dollar home with his net worth of $13 million, he is clearly the man to get the country’s fiscal problems in order


#3

Anyone have transcript on this? I’d like to see what was said, in context.


#4

heres the transcript, the link also has the NRA ad being referenced

Obama Provokes the American People - The Rush Limbaugh Show


#5

Drudge did a great job juxtaposing Obama’s use of kids to advance his anti gun agenda…all three of these are on his page!

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/QaDzfvKg33NaWK.zBnQ19A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMTQ7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-01-16T174655Z_521997241_TB3E91G1DDYFP_RTRMADP_3_USA-GUNS-OBAMA.JPG

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQionl2dFuPMBYzNkyvxO23h8A4Tge8hhlXmDq_67V3c0-X73_

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSu-bp9ZqmTNzmR-f9ctmC38lE6VNrJPIZ-qly15RYYz8ySv3qN0A

Gotta love Drudge!
A more complete record is here: » Other Tyrants Who Have Used Children As Props Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!


#6

Thanks. I agree wholeheartedly, and then some, with Rush.
Matt Yglesias at Slate.com nailed it quite succinctly:

“Your kids don’t count.
Obama’s do.”

And I’ll bet Rush is right, too, that this Mr. Waldman doesn’t have children of his own.
No man with children of his own could look them in the eye and say, “Your lives are not as important as the president’s children’s lives.”


#7

But you don’t, because you’re not nearly as important as the president. You’re not the target the president is. Well, in fact, I don’t see the president’s kids in danger. I don’t see the president’s kids going to Sandy Hook elementary. I don’t see the president’s kids living in Chicago. Other people’s kids do. And they love them just as much. And they want to protect them just as much.

I’m guessing this paragraph from the transcript is what sam had in mind (Thanks, UNTR! I was sure someone on RO would be able to get that transcript.). Isolated from context, it does suggest Rush was saying that Pres. Obama’s kids don’t need/deserve protection; in context, Rush was mocking the mindset of a lib/Prog blogger, and stated previously that, of course, any POTUS’s kids need/deserve protection.

The problem isn’t the double layer of protection at Sasha & Malia’s school (Secret Service and the private security the school also has). The problem is that Obama and Party would (until a token in yesterday’s speech) deny the value of and need for protection at ordinary American’s children’s schools. That is the hypocrisy the NRA called out and on which Rush focused.


#8

…as Obama stands there like a doe in the headlights completely baffled why all don’t agree that he and his are more important than them and theirs.
Yes, he is that conceited.


#9

I do not see why (past)Presidents need protection. They are people just like us. They want a service they can pay for it like the rest of us. There is no reason the American taxpayer should continue to foot their bill when they are no longer in office.


#10

You’ll get no argument out of me on that one.

When was the Secret Service first installed?


#11

[quote=“2cent, post:10, topic:37852”]
You’ll get no argument out of me on that one.

When was the Secret Service first installed?
[/quote]Past presidents are privy to state secrets and thus this is why they are protected.


#12

I believe it was after Garfield was assassinated. Give me a moment…


#13

From Wiki:“After the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, Congress informally requested that the Secret Service provide presidential protection. A year later, the Secret Service assumed full-time responsibility for presidential protection.”

United States Secret Service


#14

Even so I do not believe in the expense. They want protection let it be a tax write off for them and let them pay for it themselves.


#15

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/01/300x225x23Exec2-300x225.jpg.pagespeed.ic.XncIl3dV7B.jpg

Why didn’t Obama use the kids to talk about the debt?? :rofl:


#16

Thank you. (Pardon my laziness. Sometimes I just get too tired to do all my own homework.)


#17

Besides, someone somewhere often has it at their fingertips - why reinvent the wheel?


#18

Really? This is fear mongering propaganda at it’s best. No context. No mention of anything those dictators were supposedly trying to influence by having a photo op with kids. Just pictures. There’s nothing that shows that those pictures are applicable to the Obama picture. It’s amazing that that’s all it takes for the OP.

It’s not even like they were just randomly there and the order was randomly signed with no relation to a horrible event like the Sandy Hook shooting. They were there for a reason and the order was given for a reason, even though it won’t really stop anything and gun control will continue to fail.

Hitler Ate Sugar - Television Tropes & Idioms


#19

[quote=“Lithium, post:18, topic:37852”]
Really? This is fear mongering propaganda at it’s best. No context. No mention of anything those dictators were supposedly trying to influence by having a photo op with kids. Just pictures. There’s nothing that shows that those pictures are applicable to the Obama picture. It’s amazing that that’s all it takes for the OP.

It’s not even like they were just randomly there and the order was randomly signed with no relation to a horrible event like the Sandy Hook shooting. They were there for a reason and the order was given for a reason, even though it won’t really stop anything and gun control will continue to fail.

Hitler Ate Sugar - Television Tropes & Idioms
[/quote]Obozo is a cruel joke. He is a liar, and a fake. He’s an inexperienced political puppet. And, he is an opportunist of the highest order. He’s a committed Socialist, and an enemy to all that we know, as America. He’s a narcissist and a megalomaniac. A glorified Used Car Salesman. Did I mention he is a cruel joke?
Go ahead and worship the creep. Tells us all we need to know.


#20

One can disagree with Obama about being photographed with those kids, but comparing him to Stalin and Hitler is cheap and intellectually bankrupt.