Rush "I dont know the Constitution but I'll comment on it's 'PreAmble'" Limbaugh is going to argue against the former Constitutional Law Professor, Harvard Review Editor, 8-year State Senator, 4-year US Senator and current Standing President on **POLICY** decisions or the Economy!?!?!?
MUAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The *main* reason Obama wouldn't argue with him and rip him a new one (other than he's too busy) is simply because it de-legitamizes the REAL debates he would have with world-leaders.
You know....people who might --ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT-- when they approach the President to disagree.
Rush "I dont know the Constitution but I'll comment on it's 'PreAmble'" Limbaugh is going to argue against the former Constitutional Law Professor, Harvard Review Editor, 8-year State Senator, 4-year US Senator and current Standing President on **POLICY** decisions or the Economy!?!?!?
When has "I appointed 3 people who couldn't serve to cabinet positions, signed a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that has never been shown to work, and was in favor of DC in DC v. Heller" ever shwon this knowledge he apparently has.
Education and experience is worthless if you don't know how to use them. Obama's applicational ability is pathetically poor.
The *main* reason Obama wouldn't argue with him and rip him a new one (other than he's too busy) is simply because it de-legitamizes the REAL debates he would have with world-leaders.
Gotta love those empty challenges. It lets blowhards like Limbaugh pretend they've got real cojones, like peasants throwing pebbles at tanks as they rumble past. Obama won't answer, of course, and I'd be pissed if he did. There are a lot of conservative intellectuals that have legitimate arguments to be made, so if the President decided to debate the lardass instead of them it would be nothing more than a political stunt.
But let's pretend they did: Limbaugh would have his ass handed to him in under sixty seconds. Unfortunately, like yourself, he'd be too self-absorbed to realize it. And even if Limbaugh managed to save face with the public afterward, he could never "win" a debate with anyone. He is a walking/flopping logical fallacy and cannot make his arguments without violating one objective rule of argument or another.
Our President will be the better man, though, and not even acknowledge it. He's got bigger fish to fry.
Check out old Rush massaging his nipples after cowing Phil Gingrey the other day. Who needs Viagra when you can pull a Dominatrix act on a Congressman?
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 01:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 01:37 (UTC)Rush "I dont know the Constitution but I'll comment on it's 'PreAmble'" Limbaugh is going to argue against the former Constitutional Law Professor, Harvard Review Editor, 8-year State Senator, 4-year US Senator and current Standing President on **POLICY** decisions or the Economy!?!?!?
MUAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The *main* reason Obama wouldn't argue with him and rip him a new one (other than he's too busy) is simply because it de-legitamizes the REAL debates he would have with world-leaders.
You know....people who might --ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT-- when they approach the President to disagree.
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 01:56 (UTC)When has "I appointed 3 people who couldn't serve to cabinet positions, signed a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that has never been shown to work, and was in favor of DC in DC v. Heller" ever shwon this knowledge he apparently has.
Education and experience is worthless if you don't know how to use them. Obama's applicational ability is pathetically poor.
The *main* reason Obama wouldn't argue with him and rip him a new one (other than he's too busy) is simply because it de-legitamizes the REAL debates he would have with world-leaders.
But I thought Rush was the leader of the GOP?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 02:01 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 01:47 (UTC)But let's pretend they did: Limbaugh would have his ass handed to him in under sixty seconds. Unfortunately, like yourself, he'd be too self-absorbed to realize it. And even if Limbaugh managed to save face with the public afterward, he could never "win" a debate with anyone. He is a walking/flopping logical fallacy and cannot make his arguments without violating one objective rule of argument or another.
Our President will be the better man, though, and not even acknowledge it. He's got bigger fish to fry.
Peasants?
Date: 5/3/09 07:13 (UTC)Thanks!
Re: Peasants?
From:Re: Peasants?
From:Re: Peasants?
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 01:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 01:57 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 07:14 (UTC)(no subject)
From:Baaahahaha..
Date: 5/3/09 01:57 (UTC)I HOPE he debates Captian Oxycontin.
It'd be classic bloodbath, possibly even more awesome than the Biden/Palin 'debate'.
XD
Re: Baaahahaha..
Date: 5/3/09 07:15 (UTC)*rubs hands together*
Re: Baaahahaha..
From:The sound of windbags imploding
Date: 5/3/09 02:04 (UTC)Re: The sound of windbags imploding
Date: 5/3/09 02:09 (UTC)Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
Date: 5/3/09 02:37 (UTC)Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Re: The sound of windbags imploding
Date: 5/3/09 05:14 (UTC)Re: The sound of windbags imploding
Date: 5/3/09 07:15 (UTC)Re: The sound of windbags imploding
From:Round and round.
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 02:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 07:17 (UTC)Which puts Obama at a severe disadvantage!
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 07:17 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 04:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 07:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 04:54 (UTC)Boehner?
Cantor?
McConnell?
Steele?
...Piyush?
*dies laughing*
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/09 05:18 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 8/3/09 22:28 (UTC)