Best interview on FOX

Apparently you are unaware of his charity work. Rush gives more money and raises more money than most liberal Hollywood actors. Definitely more than faux news man Jon Stewart. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And he also is a drug addict. Addicted to red neck herion. And is a sex tourist having Been caught coming back from the Domican with a large amount of Viagra for which he had no prescription.

And he also is a drug addict. Addicted to red neck herion. And is a sex tourist having Been caught coming back from the Domican with a large amount of Viagra for which he had no prescription. Originally Posted by BigLouie

I'll give Lush a pass on sex tourist and a bottle of pocket wood ... who here wouldn't, raise your hand ...

That's good stuff right there. "Democrats need a permanent underclass...they need a certain level of poverty; they need a certain level of uneducated, unskilled people to vote for them, that's their base."

We see the latter demonstrated on this board on a daily basis, in spades.

Rush is Right!! Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Lyndon Johnson said it best when commenting about his "great society" agenda. "We will have those ------'s voting Democrat for the next century.

Lyndon Johnson said it best when commenting about his "great society" agenda. "We will have those ------'s voting Democrat for the next century. Originally Posted by Jackie S

spit it out son ...

I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

Rush is right ......about to eat something

Under Bush the richest 400 families owned 25% of all wealth. By the time he left off they owned 50% of all wealth... Originally Posted by BigLouie

Both of those statements are completely wrong. Perhaps it would have been a good idea for you to have paused for just a moment to think about that before posting.

It is certainly true that income and wealth inequality has increased rapidly in recent years. But when making that case, those who refrain from throwing around ridiculously wild exaggerations tend to have more credibility.

Both of those statements are completely wrong. Perhaps it would have been a good idea for you to have paused for just a moment to think about that before posting.

It is certainly true that income and wealth inequality has increased rapidly in recent years. But when making that case, those who refrain from throwing around ridiculously wild exaggerations tend to have more credibility. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

exactly what are the correct stats. I'm curious.

exactly what are the correct stats. I'm curious. Originally Posted by CJ7

Although I'm a bit too lazy to go look up data right now, a quick back-of-the-envelope analysis would look something like this:

Aggregate U.S. household net worth is something like $65 trillion, as I recall (although that number may be a few quarters old).

But just for argument's sake, and to err on the conservative side, let's assume it's $60 trillion. As you can see, if the wealthiest 400 households owned 25% of the whole pie, their mean net worth would be $37.5 billion. I read recently that the aggregate net worth of all Forbes 400 individuals is about $1.7 trillion. That sounds about right to me, since it seems reasonable that the mean net worth of the 400 wealthiest households would likely be around $4.25 billion.

Just a hunch here, but I'm guessing that Louie got the 50% number from a recent report indicating that the net worth of the Forbes 400 is at least equal to that of the bottom 50% of the wealth distribution. That may be true, since most households in the bottom half have little or no savings and net worth. But that's entirely different from saying that the top 400 "own 50% of all wealth."

That's good stuff right there. "Democrats need a permanent underclass...they need a certain level of poverty; they need a certain level of uneducated, unskilled people to vote for them, that's their base." Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Explain to us under what economic system the poor, uneducated and unskilled people would disappear?

Or government system, for that matter.

Although I'm a bit too lazy to go look up data right now, a quick back-of-the-envelope analysis would look something like this:

Aggregate U.S. household net worth is something like $65 trillion, as I recall (although that number may be a few quarters old).

But just for the argument's sake, and to err on the conservative side, let's assume it's $60 trillion. As you can see, if the wealthiest 400 households owned 25% of the whole pie, their mean net worth would be $37.5 billion. I read recently that the aggregate net worth of all Forbes 400 individuals is about $1.7 trillion. That sounds about right to me, since it seems reasonable that the mean net worth of the 400 wealthiest households would likely be around $4.25 billion.

Just a hunch here, but I'm guessing that Louie got the 50% number from a recent report indicating that the net worth of the Forbes 400 is at least equal to that of the bottom 50% of the wealth distribution. That may be true, since most households in the bottom half have little or no savings and net worth. But that's entirely different from saying that the top 400 "own 50% of all wealth." Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

thanks

TX, that is not a response. Let it go. Your socialist won the election by promising goodies. Just let it go and try to focus on 2013. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD Idiot, I can promise that will not happen. You and the rest of the bloehard losers will have to suffer through Trendy's "TRENDING" message for the next 3+ years, just as we had to suffer through his BS the months leading up to election 2013. Quite frankly, we are still listening to his (and your) bullshit, even today!

Of course, you could always leave and then you would not have to read it.

You can either live with it or STFU!

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Talking about the scandals -- President Obama says the scandals are phony. Why do you think he says they're phony, because he believes it, or is there a strategy?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: No, there's a strategy. I've -- you know, I've -- I've been troubled by something with the Obama -- you know, I playfully call it the regime because I know it irritates them. And it is like a regime. And I've been troubled, I've been amazed.
Here is a man whose policies have done great damage to this country, policies have done great damage to the economy, have done great damage to the American culture, to the American psyche. I mean, there is a malaise. There's a -- there's a -- there's a sense of -- of -- of hopelessness and depression out there. And it's his policies that have done this.

And what has always amazed me is how he's not attached to any of it. He has an agenda. He's been implementing it. But the -- what I call the low-information voters, who voted for him and other Democrats, do not associate Obama's policies and agenda with the condition of the country, the economy or whatever. That's always befuddled me.

I've never, never known a president to be immune from economic circumstances at an election as he was in 2012. It all became clear to me -- there was a New York Times story, I think one of their blog posts on the Web back in February. And it basically said via poll data what I just said to you. It said most people disapprove of the Obama agenda. They don't like the direction the country's going. They like him and they think he's great for the country.

And I said, How can that be? Intellectually, how can a majority of people -- and you know they oppose "Obama care" by 55, 60 percent in a number of polls. They are worried about jobs. How in the world can they like him, reelect him and yet disapprove of everything he's doing?

And I came up -- I call it the Limbaugh Theorem. And you hear other people talking about it in the sense that he's a bystander president or he's outside Washington. The way he does this, he never appears to be governing. That's why he's constantly campaigning.

Why is there a campaign going on for "Obama care"? It's already the law of the land. Why is he out campaigning for all this stuff that's already law, it's already going to happen?

And my theory is that Obama has positioned himself as an outsider, not attached to anything that's happening. What he has made happen, he positions himself as opposed to it and against it and fighting for everybody else to overcome what he has done!

And that's one of the reasons why the constant campaign, so he doesn't appear to be governing, so he doesn't appear to be part of Washington, so there are -- he appears to have this mysterious, powerful bunch of forces that are opposing him and stopping him from creating jobs and stopping him from giving people proper health care and stopping him from making their home values go up. But he's constantly out there fighting it. And he does that by constantly campaigning and never seen to be -- to be governing.

So all of these scandals -- he calls them -- they're not distraction, they're real. But he likes them because they detract from the absolute reality of what has happened to this country as a result of his policies.

Now, let's take a look at selling "ObamaCare" because I mentioned that (INAUDIBLE) Why in the world are you on a campaign to sell "Obama care"? What -- I mean, it's the law. Yes, you got an effort by the Republicans, two or three of them, to defund it. But why the campaign?

Very simple. You go back to 2010, 2010 midterms, the Republicans, Tea Party created, cleaned the Democrats' clocks. If you go back and look at the 2010 midterms, that was one of the biggest shellackings the Democrat Party's had in a long time. The Republicans took back the House of Representatives, but the Democrats lost a total nationwide all the way down-ballot of over 600 seats. And it was because of "ObamaCare" and the rising debt and the fact that nobody was opposing it and nobody's stopping it.

Tea Party gets created. These people show up. Now, what Obama and the Democrats really want, what they're salivating about now is winning the House in 2014. If they get that, hold the Senate, there's no such thing as a lame duck second term. They won't even need a congress. All they are is going to be a rubber stamp. Whatever Obama wants to do the past two years, just signs it and does it and Congress rubber stamps it and we've got it going. He can't be stopped. That's why they want it.

But they remember 2010. So he's out there trying to change public opinion on health care so that it doesn't replicate in 2014 what happened in 2010 in the midterms. He cannot afford for a bunch of Tea Party people, a bunch of anti-Obama voters to show up in 2010, voting against him and holding the House for the Republicans and maybe winning the Senate for the Republicans. That's one reason he's campaigning.

The second reason he's campaigning for it is simply to continue this notion that he's not of Washington, that he's outside, fighting against these powerful forces, doing everything he can to stand up for the American people.

It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen! I've never seen a president get away with four-and-a-half years of not being seen as responsible for anything he's done when everything that's happened is because of him. He can't be stopped! The Republicans don't have any power. All they can do maybe, if they get the cojones, is stop things, but they can't make anything happen. The Republicans are totally powerless in terms of legislation and Washington. They have the House, but nothing in the Senate. They can't stop him anywhere.

So yet he's out acting like he's got to overcome all of this opposition and all of these mean people that ho want to prevent the American people from realizing their dreams, these dastardly Republicans! So the phony scandals is just another vehicle to continue the same modus operandi and, by the way, to continue to blame the Republicans for being cold-hearted, mean-spirited extremists, bigots, racist, sexist homophobes, war on women, all that stuff.

anyone buy the Rush EIB leather chair that he's selling? ...it's only 499.95

what a bargain.

https://members.premiereinteractive....9udFBhZ2U9MQ==

anyone buy the Rush EIB leather chair that he's selling? ...it's only 499.95

what a bargain.

https://members.premiereinteractive....9udFBhZ2U9MQ== Originally Posted by JCM800

anyone buy into Ozombiecare? ...It's only the downfall of the USA.

I don't waste my time with FOX.