Rush popping pills again
- Thread starter unionman
- Start date
tieguy
Banned
Not sure what the spirit of christmas would say to Rush since he frequently ranks highly as a charitable celebrity. Thats the problem with your libs you repeat what
howard dean tells you without researching it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2083034/posts
from wikopedia
Charitable work
Leukemia and lymphoma telethon
Limbaugh holds an annual fundraising telethon called the "EIB Cure-a-Thon"[80] for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.[81] In 2006 the EIB Cure-a-Thon conducted its 16th annual telethon, raising $1.7 million;[82] totaling over $15 million since the first cure-a-thon.[83] According to Leukemia and Lymphoma Society annual reports, Limbaugh personally contributed between $100,000 and $499,999 from 2000–2005 and 2007,[84] and Limbaugh claims to have contributed around $250,000 in 2003, 2004 and 2005.[85] NewsMax reported Limbaugh donated $250,000 in 2006,[86] and the Society's 2006 annual report placed him in the $500,000 to $999,999 category.[84] Limbaugh donated $320,000 during the 2007 Cure-a-Thon[87] which the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society reported had raised $3.1 million.[88] On his radio program April 18, 2008, Limbaugh claimed to pledge $400,000 to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society after being challenged by two listeners to increase his initial pledge of $300,000.[89]
Rush 24/7 Adopt-A-Soldier Program
Limbaugh's website maintains a page where US soldiers can register for a free subscription to Limbaugh's online premium service, Rush 24/7, through memberships purchased by donors who buy a subscription (at a reduced price) as a gift.[90]
Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation
Limbaugh conducts an annual drive to help the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation collect contributions to provide scholarships for children of Marines and law enforcement officers/agents who have died in the line of duty.[91][92] The foundation was the beneficiary of a record $2.1 million eBay auction in October 2007 after Limbaugh listed for sale a letter critical of him signed by 41 Democratic senators and pledged to match the selling price.[93]
Lue C Fur
Evil member
Now Tieguy, thats just not fair. Liberals are generous giving out money too. They just prefer to use the US Taxpayer's money instead of pulling out their own wallet.
Amen brother!!!
Lue C Fur
Evil member
I found this interesting:
Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.
To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.
San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.
San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.
But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
Researching his book, "Who Really Cares", Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.
Says Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.
Note that Brooks said the "working" poor. The nonworking poor -- people on welfare -- are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don't give much at all.
What about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, when compared to both the rich and working poor in America, Brooks says, "They give less."
When asked why, many say, "I don't have enough money to spare." But it's telling that the working poor manage to give.
And the rich? What about America's 400 billionaires? I'll report on them in next week's column.
Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.
But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?
"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.
Another myth bites the dust.
Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.
To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.
San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.
San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.
But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
Researching his book, "Who Really Cares", Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."
Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.
Says Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."
We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.
Note that Brooks said the "working" poor. The nonworking poor -- people on welfare -- are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don't give much at all.
What about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, when compared to both the rich and working poor in America, Brooks says, "They give less."
When asked why, many say, "I don't have enough money to spare." But it's telling that the working poor manage to give.
And the rich? What about America's 400 billionaires? I'll report on them in next week's column.
Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.
But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?
"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.
Another myth bites the dust.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Liberals are generous giving out money too. They just prefer to use the US Taxpayer's money instead of pulling out their own wallet.
Scratch,
In general, what you are saying I'd agree with but when one starts looking into the matter, it's not just "the liberals" who do this.
cicra 2004' Bush Spending Fastest Increase in 30 Years
Make note of the Non Defense Spending column as it was convenient at the time to tell everyone the massive spending increases were for fighting the "War on Terror" but seems to me that would be listed elsewhere if true.
circa May 2005 How Republicans Became Big Spenders
Even the "liberal" DailyKos circa 2003' saw Bush as the big spender and pointed out a Cato Institute piece which called Bush and the Republicans out on it. Even DailyKos made a startling admission on the matter but then compared to Bush, point taken!
And besides, where were the voices of opposition to socialism when Bush and the Republicans in late 2003' made the largest expansion to the gov't run single payer healthcare plan since it was created? No tea parties, no protests and they even re-elected the guy along with the republicans in the Congress after they in almost united front voted to extend and expand socialized single payer medicine in America not to mention the increase of non-defense spending again.
But give Bush and the Republicans credit as they saw the error of their ways. circa Feb. 2007' Bush Says Budget Will Limit Non-Defense Spending Funny how he changed tunes once the election thrashing of Nov. 2006' had taken place!
Your point is still valid but there is another side of that coin you're trying to sell and if this is what conservatives do in power, tell me again the difference between to 2 parties?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Oh and BTW, who was Rush, Hannity and the rest of the talking menions campaigning for during these years? And we're suppose to take them serious when they speak of free market economics and limited gov't?
Seems from unionman to some of the repubs here, the "CON JOB" has been most effective!
Seems from unionman to some of the repubs here, the "CON JOB" has been most effective!
I wasn't responding to what has been happening on a national scale, I really don't see much difference in either of the two major parties. I hope we can start voting everyone of them out of office the next few elections.
I was responding to what I see locally. I have worked for about a dozen charities over the years, I see this in person. The faith-based charities do a much better job at helping poor people. Lue C Fer's above post is spot on. Lately I have been working with a local food program that my wife is heavily involved in. You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to do all this paperwork the government requires just for us to hand out free food to people down on their luck/or just lazy. Its these "evil" Christian types who give out food because its in their hearts to do so. In the volunteer's parking lot, you see mostly conservative type of bumper stickers. When we carry groceries out to the clients cars, 99% of them have OBama stickers on them. A carton of smokes on the dash, lottery tickets everywhere, and bottles of alcohol in the floorboard. And then some of them have the nerve to complain that they didn't get the brand name of food they like. It gets frustrating sometimes.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
And my "BTW" comment wasn't aimed at you either. Sorry for the confusion. It was just aimed at the broader context of so-called conservative talk radio in general and both sides who go back and forth about it.
As for my first comment, it just used your's (comment to Tie's post) to make a broader comment that IMO backs up you statement above that I highlighted that was spot on. As for private charities, again what you point out is so true at least in what it does to help people. I don't pay attention to bumper stickers as you have so don't know about that one but IMO private charities are not there in general to build and expand careers, promotion oppotunities and because donations are voluntary, they have to show that they are working to solve a problem. I won't say private charity is always perfect and beyond abuse but in general I think most are.
Gov't however in not voluntary but is mandatory by force and people in gov't are there to have careers just as we do at UPS. Are we (UPSers) generally seeking out to obtain new customers and expand the business base in order to grow profits that generate promotions, more jobs, moving up the seniority list as the job list grows? Sure, so is it any less of us to think that those in gov't in their own careers are not out to do the same so they too can profit for career growth opportunities or just financial security in a solid and ever growing customer base? How would these people in gov't fair is there was no more poverty or other ill condition? Would it therefore benefit them to either have more poverty or just change the definition from time to time to expand the customer base?
Did we all just have a Eureka moment? And the 2 parties benefit from more votes via the giveaway plan.Can a private charity use the same level of force to extract contributions from all the people who live within a set geographic area no matter how effective they are at what they do? The only means they have to gain contributions is to perform as promised to those that contribute. Gov't however is not bound to that level of specific performance and thus one of the reasons nothing ever gets solved!
Keep up the good work with private charities and undercutting the gov't customer base and it's business model! I'm also a huge advocate of that method. But then gov't will just expand the rules that defined the needy and at some point we'll all be on the list. I'm already planning on what big screen I'm gonna buy and the cadillac I'm gonna drive. Maybe like Atlas we should begin to Shrug!
tieguy
Banned
Scratch,
In general, what you are saying I'd agree with but when one starts looking into the matter, it's not just "the liberals" who do this.
cicra 2004' Bush Spending Fastest Increase in 30 Years
Make note of the Non Defense Spending column as it was convenient at the time to tell everyone the massive spending increases were for fighting the "War on Terror" but seems to me that would be listed elsewhere if true.
circa May 2005 How Republicans Became Big Spenders
Even the "liberal" DailyKos circa 2003' saw Bush as the big spender and pointed out a Cato Institute piece which called Bush and the Republicans out on it. Even DailyKos made a startling admission on the matter but then compared to Bush, point taken!
And besides, where were the voices of opposition to socialism when Bush and the Republicans in late 2003' made the largest expansion to the gov't run single payer healthcare plan since it was created? No tea parties, no protests and they even re-elected the guy along with the republicans in the Congress after they in almost united front voted to extend and expand socialized single payer medicine in America not to mention the increase of non-defense spending again.
But give Bush and the Republicans credit as they saw the error of their ways. circa Feb. 2007' Bush Says Budget Will Limit Non-Defense Spending Funny how he changed tunes once the election thrashing of Nov. 2006' had taken place!
Your point is still valid but there is another side of that coin you're trying to sell and if this is what conservatives do in power, tell me again the difference between to 2 parties?
I think your informatin may be a little dated. How does it compare to todays democrats who own the entire spending process?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Big Government Under the Bush Adminstration Nov. 16, 2008
How Bush Broke the Government Jan. 5, 2009
But even more telling is data directly from the Treasury Department as it concerns the National Debt. From Jan 20th 2001 to Jan 20th 2009 under the leadership of George Bush and 6 of those 8 years with a Congress very Republican dominated regardless of Sen. Jeffords shipjumping in May of 01, here is the actual debt data from Treasury for that time period. Let's make note that when Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion dollars and when he departed in 2009 the national debt had increased to, discounting a little chump change, $10.7 trillion dollars. Just for the sake of contrast, during the Clinton years, he came into office with an initial debt of $4.18 trillion dollars in national debt and turned over the housekeys to Bush in 2001 with a debt of the $5.7 trillion already mentioned above. (Make note under Clinton the debt still went up)
As has been often noted Reagan took us over the $1 trillion dollar debt mark during his term so between Reagan and Bush 1 we went from roughly just under $1 trillion to $4.18 when the Clintons moved in. It also worth noting that during the Clinton years the actual number of federal employees went down or in other words, gov't shrank in size. We can quibble on specifics and there's lots to quibble with and had there not been a republican Congress 6 of Clinton's 8 years, I can't say that we'd be still having this same discussion. I point this out only to show what was taking place when Bush and the republicans got it all in 2001.
But let's look at what republicans were saying leading up to that Nov. 2000' election and judge them by their own words. From the 2000' Republican platform itself. Scroll down past the Preamble to a Subtitled Section: The Republican Congress
Just below the above in the platform we also find this equally true statement.
I would concur with the observation of over-taxation except for one fly in the ontiment. The National Debt. All things remaining equal and surplus projections of $5 Tril over 10 years coming true, what would the net result be if we applied that $5 tril to the then $5 trillion dollar debt? Again, all things remaining constaint (they didn't for the record) here we are 10 years later and now as a Nation we are completely debt free. According to the Treasury Department again, in fiscal year 2009' interest payments alone on the national debt amounted too $383 billion dollars. That's just interest and if you noticed a drop from the last couple of years, that's because the gov't got the Federal Reserve to drop the interest rate to virtually zero because we were likely to default otherwise. So much for the myth of Fed independence.
But let's say we paid off the debt and we now sit as a nation debt free so using the republican stance of over taxation we decide to return these tax dollars to the public. Using a figure of 150 million taxpaying workers divided into that $383 bilion dollars, if my math is correct that means annually every working taxpayer keeps on average $2500 plus dollars. Now this was a purely raw exercise and the actual numbers would have been different using a progressive model in which taxes are collected meaning a return on same structure but the more important point is that all of a sudden $383 billion dollars annually would be pumped back into the economy and I didn't touch and tamper with any gov't service or sacred cow. What would this also do to the strenght and value of the dollar itself not only here at home but also abroad? If $383 billion dollars were injected right now into the private economy, what would that do? What would it do next year or the year after that? Yet we see a guaranteed future of even increasing interest payments on the debt with no end in sight and either gov't will have to be cut or taxes raised in order to meet that service obligation. What will that do to the economy? We (well some of us) so worry about the radical terrorist but the truth is, time is one his side and like a vulture over a dying animal all he has to do now is circle overhead waiting for nature to take it's course. And it will!
Tie, had republicans even with all the events of 9/11, etc. even attempted in any way to follow that model of debt reduction, I contend the landscape of gov't as we know it today and the discussion we have here would be dramatically different as would be the face of gov't itself. Yet, they did not. We know now that in fact gov't grew in size and scope over the last 8 years (now 9 with 1 in the books for Obama) and there seems no hope in sight that it will abate. Although they speak up now, it seems self serving because of their silence over the last 8 years but the point still remains true, this is all totally unsustainable and contary to the belief in myths, this all did not occur beginning Jan. 20th 2009' no matter how hard someone might try to fool themselves otherwise.
What we got in Washington right now sux and I mean the deep throat kind but don't try and tell me that for the last 8 years, the other party wasn't swallowing either. Remember the Congressman who yelled out at Obama, "you lie" well the truth is Obama wasn't the only liar in the room and at least on that night and in that situation, Obama wasn't the bigger hypocrite either!
How Bush Broke the Government Jan. 5, 2009
But even more telling is data directly from the Treasury Department as it concerns the National Debt. From Jan 20th 2001 to Jan 20th 2009 under the leadership of George Bush and 6 of those 8 years with a Congress very Republican dominated regardless of Sen. Jeffords shipjumping in May of 01, here is the actual debt data from Treasury for that time period. Let's make note that when Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion dollars and when he departed in 2009 the national debt had increased to, discounting a little chump change, $10.7 trillion dollars. Just for the sake of contrast, during the Clinton years, he came into office with an initial debt of $4.18 trillion dollars in national debt and turned over the housekeys to Bush in 2001 with a debt of the $5.7 trillion already mentioned above. (Make note under Clinton the debt still went up)
As has been often noted Reagan took us over the $1 trillion dollar debt mark during his term so between Reagan and Bush 1 we went from roughly just under $1 trillion to $4.18 when the Clintons moved in. It also worth noting that during the Clinton years the actual number of federal employees went down or in other words, gov't shrank in size. We can quibble on specifics and there's lots to quibble with and had there not been a republican Congress 6 of Clinton's 8 years, I can't say that we'd be still having this same discussion. I point this out only to show what was taking place when Bush and the republicans got it all in 2001.
But let's look at what republicans were saying leading up to that Nov. 2000' election and judge them by their own words. From the 2000' Republican platform itself. Scroll down past the Preamble to a Subtitled Section: The Republican Congress
Just below the above in the platform we also find this equally true statement.
I would concur with the observation of over-taxation except for one fly in the ontiment. The National Debt. All things remaining equal and surplus projections of $5 Tril over 10 years coming true, what would the net result be if we applied that $5 tril to the then $5 trillion dollar debt? Again, all things remaining constaint (they didn't for the record) here we are 10 years later and now as a Nation we are completely debt free. According to the Treasury Department again, in fiscal year 2009' interest payments alone on the national debt amounted too $383 billion dollars. That's just interest and if you noticed a drop from the last couple of years, that's because the gov't got the Federal Reserve to drop the interest rate to virtually zero because we were likely to default otherwise. So much for the myth of Fed independence.
But let's say we paid off the debt and we now sit as a nation debt free so using the republican stance of over taxation we decide to return these tax dollars to the public. Using a figure of 150 million taxpaying workers divided into that $383 bilion dollars, if my math is correct that means annually every working taxpayer keeps on average $2500 plus dollars. Now this was a purely raw exercise and the actual numbers would have been different using a progressive model in which taxes are collected meaning a return on same structure but the more important point is that all of a sudden $383 billion dollars annually would be pumped back into the economy and I didn't touch and tamper with any gov't service or sacred cow. What would this also do to the strenght and value of the dollar itself not only here at home but also abroad? If $383 billion dollars were injected right now into the private economy, what would that do? What would it do next year or the year after that? Yet we see a guaranteed future of even increasing interest payments on the debt with no end in sight and either gov't will have to be cut or taxes raised in order to meet that service obligation. What will that do to the economy? We (well some of us) so worry about the radical terrorist but the truth is, time is one his side and like a vulture over a dying animal all he has to do now is circle overhead waiting for nature to take it's course. And it will!
Tie, had republicans even with all the events of 9/11, etc. even attempted in any way to follow that model of debt reduction, I contend the landscape of gov't as we know it today and the discussion we have here would be dramatically different as would be the face of gov't itself. Yet, they did not. We know now that in fact gov't grew in size and scope over the last 8 years (now 9 with 1 in the books for Obama) and there seems no hope in sight that it will abate. Although they speak up now, it seems self serving because of their silence over the last 8 years but the point still remains true, this is all totally unsustainable and contary to the belief in myths, this all did not occur beginning Jan. 20th 2009' no matter how hard someone might try to fool themselves otherwise.
What we got in Washington right now sux and I mean the deep throat kind but don't try and tell me that for the last 8 years, the other party wasn't swallowing either. Remember the Congressman who yelled out at Obama, "you lie" well the truth is Obama wasn't the only liar in the room and at least on that night and in that situation, Obama wasn't the bigger hypocrite either!
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Was Rush Limbaugh Attacked?
in all seriousness, if Rush Limbaugh was deliberately attacked with a frequency weapon while on Hawaiian vacation?
Consider the facts in Rush Limbaugh is frequently under physician observation, because people who are in his position have contracts worth millions of dollars and corporate sponsors and legal representatives of insurance companies require these very expensive celebrities to undergo yearly physicals to prove the investment is worth it.
Mr. Limbaugh stated he felt this heart attack coming on. Heart attacks do not come on in symptoms, you either have one or you do not. This points to something generated over a period of time to build to a neuro short circuit climax.
As no virus was found, this was not a virus symptom and the hospital certainly would have found if this was something Mr. Limbaugh, smoked, ate or drank.
So the question which does indeed need to asked as Mr. Limbaugh was rushed by ambulance to the hospital in serious condition, how he suddenly got better once out of the hotel room?
The Russian FSB has been poisoning people from London to the Ukraine with Polonium and other poisons. All of this goes one against enemies of the state. Rush Limbaugh is on Obama’s enemies list, and as of late it has been quite lethal for the CIA and Soldiers to be on Mr. Obama’s lists.
I make no claims in this, but I know what I know in experience and science, and I know what this has a probability of looking like, and this right now has a 60% chance this was a electo frequency attack on Rush Limbaugh, as all the other possibilities have been discredited.
agtG 265
Rush Limbaugh
Is that safe? Driving with your Rush blinders on.
Lue C Fur
Evil member
Could be worse if he had Obama blinders on...heck he would not even get out of the driveway.
Are you trying to say that Obama is stubborn, not willing to comprimise, and trying to fool the world into a war against the wrong enemy? Uh, that would be the last president.Could be worse if he had Obama blinders on...heck he would not even get out of the driveway.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
i find it interesting how many people think that rush is powerful enough to bring down the economy. but if you would take the time to listen to the whole of his comment, it is that to prove that obamma and bush's plans for pulling us out of the bad economy is wrong, he hoped they would fail.
and the reason is simple. only a dramatic failure would keep them from expanding the failed programs, and unrestrained spending.
bottom line, while i do listen to rush, the problem does not lie with just dems, but with all of the power hungry in the nations capitol. they are all a bunch of liars. and for the republicans to claim they are trying to find themselves and rebuild their moral characters, sorry, that just is not going to be believed by so many.
I think it is time for a drastic overhaul, and a triming of the federal government by 80% or more.
take the power out of the hands that are corrupt in washington, and that power will be put back at the state level. and the money that goes with that power.
d
and the reason is simple. only a dramatic failure would keep them from expanding the failed programs, and unrestrained spending.
bottom line, while i do listen to rush, the problem does not lie with just dems, but with all of the power hungry in the nations capitol. they are all a bunch of liars. and for the republicans to claim they are trying to find themselves and rebuild their moral characters, sorry, that just is not going to be believed by so many.
I think it is time for a drastic overhaul, and a triming of the federal government by 80% or more.
take the power out of the hands that are corrupt in washington, and that power will be put back at the state level. and the money that goes with that power.
d
I disagree. Rush wanted the economy to fail and he even said that later. Rush is dangerous because he makes every problem sound like its so easy to fix and his listeners eat it up. He is just like every other Republican, quick to criticize but has no answers.
Lue C Fur
Evil member
And the Democrats are perfect, never lie, cheat or steal, and Obama is the second coming of Christ.
Similar threads
