About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh on Nobel for Carter, Gore, Obama: "Liberal sell outs get this prize," not Bush, Reagan

October 09, 2009 2:04 pm ET

Limbaugh: Obama has "risen above incompetence"

From the October 9 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by achorn316 (October 09, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
      7  
      maybe liberals get it because they deserve it Rush?

      Republicans hate peace, they make too much money from war.

      Oh wait, thats right, liberals only deserve to die according to the extreme right wing.

      btw... Bush didnt "liberate" anyone. (Note to Rush.. its 49 million since Bush killed a million of them.)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (October 09, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
        3  
        maybe liberals get it because they deserve it Rush?

        Yet another concept that Rush just doesn't get...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by RationalThinker (October 09, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
      5  
      We can make an award for illegally entering into wars, bombing civilians, illegally wiretaping your own people and then we can give it to Bush if that would make you feel better?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (October 10, 2009 11:17 pm ET)
           
        What wars were entered into illegally?

        Isn't the Obama administration bombing civilians with drones? Can you name any war where there were no civilian casualties?

        Can you cite any instances where "our own people" were wiretapped? Or perhaps he wiretapped "our own people" who were assisting or who were terrorists.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (October 11, 2009 5:32 am ET)
          1  
          What wars were entered into illegally?
          Iraq was illegal. If China claimed that we posed a threat, then invaded before inspectors finished their job, I'm pretty sure you'd have a problem with that. We have international law for precisely this reason, so that the overthrow of foreign nations must be justified. Besides that, check up on the Supremacy Clause.
          Can you cite any instances where "our own people" were wiretapped? Or perhaps he wiretapped "our own people" who were assisting or who were terrorists.
          This has always been a moronic argument from the right. Obviously if there's no oversight, then there's no way of knowing who is wiretapped. That's the whole problem. What I'd like to know is how you figure that your supposition makes any sense. We had FISA already, remember? They turned down four requests in however many years. So what, exactly, was the need for circumventing that process? Were known terrorists or people who were very clearly engaging in terrorism being protected by that system? It doesn't seem very likely, now does it? No, the only way it makes sense is if Bush wanted to be able to spy on people that weren't going to be allowed through FISA, which would mean that there was no basis for spying on them.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (October 09, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
      6  
      Right wing nut wishfull thinking: Start 2 wars in the middle east and everybody sings kumbaya.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (October 09, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
      3  
      well lets talk about sale outs rushbuttboil,,,, it was your two dummy's that did the sale out they sold this country right out from under the middle class.
      remember us the middle class the real Americans.

      and i am Proud of my country these days.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gs-425 (October 09, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
      1 6
      Nelson Mandela spent a 1/4 century in jail to get his. President Obama was in office 11 days and got the Prize. Mandel got cheated!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dmhack (October 09, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
        4  
        Could someone on the right point out where the time requirement is in the committee's rules?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (October 09, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
          2  
          Yes, and also point out how Obama's award somehow nullified Mandela's?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (October 09, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
            3  
            Clearly our troll doesn't know that the official right-wing line on Mandela is that he's a dirty Commie murderer of decent white folk. If a troll wants to pick a Nobel winner to admire, they'd be better off with Henry Kissinger.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by gs-425 (October 11, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
                 
              "...Mandela is that he's a dirty Commie murderer of decent white folk"

              Hindsight.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 09, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
            3  
            Very simple. The Right treats the Nobel Prize, as it does every other concept in human existence, as a zero-sum game. If someone wins a prize, that means someone MUST lose a prize, even if that never happens in reality. Therefore, Mandela must have lost the Nobel Prize when Obama won it. I don't think we'll ever have to worry about what true diplomat will have lost the Nobel Prize when some wingnut wins one.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by gs-425 (October 10, 2009 11:35 am ET)
           
        Brought to you by the party of everybody gets a trophy for participating. The world is laughing....even some of those on the left. Saps.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by progressiveright (October 09, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
      3  
      How is working for peace selling out Rush? This statement tells me you hate peace. That in and of itself makes you evil.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (October 09, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
        3  
        Hey, "How is working for peace selling out?" Working for peace means listening to other peoples, recognizing that they have rights, too, and accepting that they might not see things just the way you do. That's UnMerkin.

        Merkins kick @ss, no questions asked.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 09, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
          2  
          Merkins kick @ss, no questions asked.
          That spelling always cracks me up. One can just picture Rush's audience as a vast sea of pubic wigs.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mwjarv (October 09, 2009 2:15 pm ET)
      8  
      Maybe Regan didn't get the Nobel Prize for Peace because he ignored thousands of people in his own country dying of AIDS? As per Bush, I think it would be hard to give the prize to someone who introduced "Waterboarding" into the American lexicon.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by noneyabidnis (October 09, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
        4  
        Re AIDS, one good thing W. did was really confront AIDS in Africa. I wish more focus was put on that - that's one area where he really stepped up.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by scubcap647 (October 09, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
          1  
          I have to give it up for him on that front. He did make SERIOUS efforts to treat and eliminate AIDS in Africa. He earned his praises for that. It's just those ill advised wars and corporate deregulation that made his presidency objectionable.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (October 10, 2009 11:23 pm ET)
               
            Could you point to any laws that Bush signed that were responsible for deregulation? If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the vast majority of the deregs took place and were signed into law by the Clinton admin.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by scubcap647 (October 12, 2009 10:37 am ET)
                 
              Do you have anything better to do than stalk people on this site. I never said "Bush signed deregulation laws into affect". I said that it happened under his watch. Ultimately he is responsible although more direct blame can be placed on the SEC and Alan Greenspan (who was the fed chairman at the time). Banks were allowed to engage in a variety of questionable practices without so much as a second thought from any regulating body. All Bush did was allow it to happen by not getting involved with it. He left it up to Greenspan and the SEC who in turn left it up to the banks to regulate themselves and do the right thing. Also, is the piece of legislation you mention under Clinton the CRA that started under Carter? If so then it should be noted that most of the institutions subject to the CRA actually made less risky loans over time. The institutions that were not subject are the culprits who continued to make risk loans and bets with people's money. But I'm sure you knew all of that, because you know what you're talking about. Now please take the following links and educate yourself a little. Thank you.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Regulatory_philosophy

              http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
              Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 09, 2009 3:14 pm ET)
          2  
          Re AIDS, one good thing W. did was really confront AIDS in Africa.
          I keep reading this here, and I want to know, what did W do about AIDS in Africa that wasn't too little and too late? He thought Africa was a country, for Christ's sake, and he cared very little about its people. What did he do to "confront" AIDS that the Red Cross, Read Crescent, and the WHO weren't already doing with the limited resources they had?

          The money W promised for AIDS research (wasn't the figure originally around $15 million?) wasn't much at all, and only a third of what was promised was ever actually sent, and a good deal of that was intercepted by warlords and used for weapons.

          If I'm wrong, please educate me.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 09, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
            1  
            "Read Crescent" should be "Red Crescent."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (October 09, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
            1 7
            Oh, and what's Obama doing about it again? Nothing you say? Well, he at least ended the wars in the middle east, right? No? Hmm, let's see, he must have stopped Iran and North Korea from creating nukes. Wrong again? Oh man, I'm running out of things. Oh well.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mwjarv (October 09, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
              3  
              Starkcr31, is this a reply? And, if so, to what? One person in this thread asks to be educated if he is wrong about something and my original supposition has nothing to do with what you wrote. Moreover, I did not, anywhere, say that Obama should have received the Nobel, I merely pointed to why I thought the others did not, themselves, receive the award. So, again, I am really not sure as to what you are responding...
              Report Abuse
          • Author by noneyabidnis (October 09, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
            2  
            Bush made it "cool" to confront AIDs in Africa. If nothing else, he brought a lot of legitimacy to the issue. Even the worst of Presidents still have a lot of influence.

            Remember, before Bush, AIDs was still a political hot button, especially on the right (it still is to some degree). Bush stood up and asked "what can I do to help?", and a lot of others got behind him. He was in uncharted territory. He helped create an environment that desperately needed to be created. Did he get it completely right? Who knows - time will tell. But so far, it looks like he got the ball rolling on something that's making a big difference.

            In 2003, he asked for 15 billion to send overseas (mostly to Africa). In 2007 he asked for 30 billion. Not sure if he got it.

            And re the warlords, etc - what else could he do?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (October 10, 2009 11:26 pm ET)
               
            Funny , even Obama thinks Bush did good with AIDS in Africa. I guess you are the only one with the correct info.

            http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/01/world.aids.day/index.html
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (October 09, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
        6  
        Reagan supported the Contras. Also I would have to think that his over-the-top rhetoric about the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union and his opposition to nuclear arms negotiations had to be major factors in his failure to get a Peace Prize.

        The mention of Bush is hilarious. Torture, killing habeas corpus, and especially invading a sovereign nation on highly questionable intelligence are pretty clearly disqualifying factors.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Lizinbklyn (October 09, 2009 2:15 pm ET)
      7  
      "Liberal sell outs . . "

      Really, remind us all how many tours Pillboy did again?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (October 09, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
      4  
      Limpdog is, in essence, the Billy Mays of Politics. He's a shill for the Republican Party... nothing more, nothing less. He can't possibly be stupid enough to truly believe even half of what he pukes out.

      If Obama had NOT received the Nobel Prize, Rush would be hammering him for that, as well.

      Porky is a shameless, overpaid hack.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (October 09, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
      3  
      I bet those millions of Muslims would uniformly vote that they did not want to be saved by us. What do you think the percentage of yes would be on that one?

      So the Noble peace prize which is supposed to award "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" as defined by Alfred Noble is a liberal sell out.

      Check your facts against their boss, we liberals are the ones that have ALWAYS been for peace over war and underprivelaged over wealthy and social programs regardless of increased spending as long as it is spent wisely and environmental, economic and health laws that curb or stop emission, regulate business and give poor people healthcare coverage. Sorry to break it to you but that is exactly what the Noble committee is looking for in a nominee and the dems fit the bill. It sounds like this sac of dung is actually surprised about this. Like the peace prize will go to someone that starts 2 wars or a handful or reagan who said give all your money to the rich and eventually the poor will get to pick up the crumbs if there are any left. Keep dreaming and we didnt liberate squat. Get your tail to Iraq right now Rush and talk to the people there who we "liberated." Ask them what they think of Bush - one of them threw a shoe at him and he actually got released early from jail and was cheered on his release - that speaks volumes no? They hate us Rush because we brought guns and bombs into their country and destroyed stuff like stuff that they use and i try and try but i cant think of a legit reason to this day as to why we went there. How about Iran decides that Obama is tyrranical - you hate obama right so I guess you would be thrilled if the iranian army came here and just started killing people and bombing stuff. Yeaaaa I didnt think so
      Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (October 09, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
      2  
      Kissinger didn't kill enough civilians to be one of the Good Winners, Rush?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 09, 2009 2:44 pm ET)
      3  
      Regan and Bush would never earn the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (October 09, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
      3  
      Reagan armed the Mujahadeen, Saddam and the Taliban. He gave arms to terrorsist in exchange for hostages. What the hell did he ever do to deserve the Peace Prize? Go eight years without plunging the world into Nuclear Anihlation? Wow. Nuclear deterence works on it's own. We didn't need Reagan for that!

      And BUSH?! You're kidding right? I mean... that's almost Colbert-level saitre... IF you're kidding.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      (Or was he talking about Bush'41?)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by starkcr31 (October 09, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
      1 7
      I'm not saying that Bush deserved it or anything (he didn't), but to suggest that Obama deserves to get it for no reason at all and Gore deserved it for making a crappy movie with fake science is insane.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (October 09, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
        4  
        Hey, not everyone can be a super-genius like you. Or Rush, since the only thoughts in your head are his.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 09, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
        3  
        Stalker, did you not read the reasons cited by the Committee? Since it is THEIR award, they have every right in the world to decide who is qualified to receive it. They stated their reasons quite succinctly.

        Just because you think of Obama and Gore as being on the "opposing team" in this country doesn't mean the rest of the world does nor does it mean that they GIVE a rip about how you feel about the stupid "us v. them" game that phony conservatives like Rush and his ilk have ginned up. He won, again, get over it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (October 09, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
          1 7
          Typical liberal response: He won, get over it. It's the same thing you apply to Obama. He's incompetent and ruining the country but he won, so I just need to accept it. He did nothing at all to win this award, but he won and I need to just get over it I guess.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by peace4all (October 09, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
            3  
            you say he's ruining the country. i would say that he is trying to repair the damage that you guys did to it. i find it surprising that you don't like the term "get over it" after all , you guys coined the phrase after the 2000 election anytime the election was brought up. i know it irks you that Obama got the peace prize but thats to bad. it was not up to you or to me. the commitee choose him and they gave their reasons. some will agree, some will disagree. just like there are some who say that Bush kept us safe and protected the country for 8 years. there are those of us who don't agree with that at all but we don't get to decide what you think. now that Obama is in the white house he is going to do his best to make the country great again. if you don't like what he does, vote him out in 2012. and please don't start with your end of days arguement that the country won't survive until then. if we could survive eight years of bush i'm sure we can survive 4 years of obama. i could spend some time pointing out why you are so completely wrong about Obama, but, there would be no point. you have constucted your world view and no amout of reality will change that for you until you are ready to see the world as it truly exists.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (October 09, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
            3  

            "Typical liberal response: He won, get over it."



            Actually, starkey, that was the typical right wing response after Dumbya was awarded the presidency courtesy of the Supreme Court . . .




            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (October 09, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
            2  
            There you go again, stalker . . . I will repeat, I'm not any more a liberal than you are a conservative. Obama is NOT incompetent, he isn't ruining the country. Bush WAS incompetent and he just almost destroyed this country and then walked away, just as he has done with EVERY SINGLE endeavor he has ever attempted in his ENTIRE life. Obama had the misfortune of following Bush into office . . . McCain would have been met with the SAME mess and, most likely, would have had the EXACT SAME STRUGGLES.

            And yes, you need to get over it. It's not his policies that you object to, stalker, it's the fact that he WON and YOU LOST.

            GROW UP and turn off Fox and hate talk radio. They are filling your head full of out and out lies . . . the most important one being that the nonsense they are spewing has ANYTHING to do with conservatism and that, by agreeing with them, that you are, by extension, a conservative. If you were TRULY a conservative, you would have been jumping up and down for the past 8 years at the almost complete distruction of our country.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 09, 2009 10:55 pm ET)
            1  
            STARKER,Funny but i seem to remember HANNITY saying the very same thing to us after BUSH V GORE in 2000.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (October 09, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
        3  
        I'm not saying that Bush deserved it or anything (he didn't), but to suggest that Obama deserves to get it for no reason at all and Gore deserved it for making a crappy movie with fake science is insane.
        If that's truly what you believe, then you are far too stupid ever to see what the award was given for.

        You need to hire someone to come in and water you daily.

        The fact that you are too stupid to understand science doesn't make it "fake," it just means that science, like the average height of a freshly-mowed blade of grass, is over your head.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by starkcr31 (October 09, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
          1 4
          I watched that movie and there it has no basis in reality.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (October 09, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
            1  
            Didn't you chastise someone yesterday for calling someone a "liar" without providing specifics?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by peace4all (October 09, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
            1  
            really? please show us which part is non-reality based.
            oh, thats right, you got nuthin
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (October 09, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
            1  
            Really? And your qualifications to determine that there was no basis in reality would be???????

            Report Abuse
          • Author by pilotshark (October 09, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
            2  
            LOL>>> talk about basis in reality. went did you figure out that reality was a concept that is just to big for you to comprehend.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (October 09, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
            2  
            starker, you have no basis in reality if you continue to believe all this FAR RIGHT WING bulls--t.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (October 09, 2009 3:42 pm ET)
        2  
        That "crappy movie" won an Academy Award and that "fake science" is endorsed by thousands of reputable scientists . . .

        The only thing that's insane is you thinking that because you disagree with it, it automatically makes it untrue.



        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (October 10, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
             
          Yeah , an academy award by the politically neutral film industry , hilarious.

          And BTW, there are plenty of reputable scientists who say that science is indeed fake. But of course you don't agree with them so you will dismiss what they say and cherry pick the ones you agree with.

          I thought you libs were against cherry picking.

          The only thing that's insane is you thinking that because you agree with it, it automatically makes it true.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by scubcap647 (October 09, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
      2  
      What bothers me is that these people who are so upset with Obama being awarded a Nobel Prize never gave a d@mn about the award before now. The vast majority couldn't tell you who won any previous awards. Maybe they can tell you a few for economics and science. But they can only tell you two who won for peace before Obama. *Hint- They're both black guys who were seen as controversial figures for years.*
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (October 10, 2009 11:50 pm ET)
          1
        What did you think of Dr Mark Lamont Hill's comments about Obama's Nobel. And in case you are not aware Dr Hill is another black guy, a very liberal one at that.

        http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/should-obama-have-won-the-nobel-peace-prize/2919580833
        Report Abuse
        • Author by scubcap647 (October 12, 2009 10:57 am ET)
             
          Wow! He's black. I didn't know. I just thought he had a really deep tan. Seriously, my point was that the obsession with him being awarded an honor that he had no idea about until the morning it was decided is rediculous. I agree with Dr Hill to a point. I agree Obama hasn't achieved actual peace around the world. But the award doesn't go to people who have achieved peace. It goes to those who promote it. What Obama has done is to help remove the idea of America as being an isolationist country. Other nations are willing to speak openly with us where at one point they didn't feel we were even approachable. We as a country are beginning to take our place back in the world community as a part of that community. We can no longer function as if we are in a world all to ourselves and still be dependent on other countries for material goods. That's like the person who only speaks to you when they want something from you. Nobody likes that person and nobody wants to be that person. By opening up conversations with countries we once saw as enemies who we do not speak to, we are putting a new face on America. It doesn't scream "like me at all costs". Rather it says "I realize we have to live together so let's make the best of it". You can break it down to a local level. Would you want to constantly be on the lookout for the guy that lives in the same community as you? No. Especially if you work together. But if you knew that there was friction between the two of you, wouldn't you want to resolve it as best as you can? I would hope so. I know I wouldn't want to have an issue with someone who is not only a coworker, but a neighbor of some sort as well.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by noneyabidnis (October 09, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
      3  
      I do like his Clinton impression.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wattpuppy (October 09, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
           
        Me too. Perhaps we should all mellow out and accept this as the natural out growth of having elected our first Affirmative Action President. Instead of putting him on academic probation, this puts him on the Dean's List. THis is how liberals assuage there deep guilt for screwing over the dark peoples of the world.
        Report Abuse