In another naming of talk radio names, President Obama spoke Friday with
CBS News' Harry Smith about the vitriol on talk radio.
This works for everyone, except, perhaps, the Republican Party: Rush and Glenn get a mention by the POTUS (which never hurts the ol' ratings!) and Obama gets to bully-pulpit the connection between the trash-talking entertainers and his opposition.
Harry Smith: “I’ve been out and about, listening to talk radio, the kindest of terms you're sometimes referred to out in America is a socialist. The worst of which I've heard is called a Nazi. Are you aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation about you?
President Obama: “Well, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it's pretty apparent, and it's troublesome," the President responded. "But keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious, and people are feeling like there is a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans. I think the vast majority of Americans know that we're trying hard, that I want what's best for the country."
Obama added: ”I didn't buy all the hype, right after inauguration, where everybody was only saying nice things about me," he said. "And I don't get too worried when things aren't going as well because I know that over time these things turn."
Obama, is one of America's monumental mistakes, but he is not a Nazi. He does take a few things from Hitler's play book that he feels might help him obtain his socialist goals and control over the little people and business, but not Hitler's ideals.
Posted by: chuck says joanie is a liar. (because she lies) | April 03, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Way before Adolf started packing the Jews off to the death camps , he started with the communists and the lefties.
Added to that his hate for the Bolsheviks.
You have to be real simpleton to believe he was a lefty just because the party name was "National Socialist".
Posted by: ExPatBrit | April 03, 2010 at 01:08 PM
Hitler is out there by himself. I do not compare Obama's lame arsed politics to Hitlers lame assed politics. There is no comparison. They are different idiotology's.
Only the tactics of population control have valid comparisons. Although MSNBC and others in the press are very accommodating to Obama's needs and desires, I don't yet believe that he is controlling them yet. I still have hopes that the press will pull their heads out of their respective butts and challenge this administration. In the long run, unlike Hitler, Obama will not control the press.
Posted by: chuck says joanie is a liar. (because she lies) | April 03, 2010 at 01:23 PM
Well I guess you could say because the Democratic party supports birth control and abortion that constitutes population control.
However the Republicans support population control by killing people that are already alive via wars and withholding health-care.
Depends what you feel is better I guess.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | April 03, 2010 at 01:41 PM
Obomba's ego and narcissism knows no bounds. This will help Limbaugh's and Beck's ratings move up - he forgot to mention Hannity. He may be getting ready to attack their 1st Amendment rights via his FCC czars or Regulation czar if they keep annoying him. Mr. President - grow up !
"However the Republicans support population control by killing people that are already alive via wars and withholding health-care."
Using MSLSD's talking points - how original. People need to get off their asses and buy Health Insurance and that can be done with sucking off the teet of Big Government & becoming more a nanny state - a dumb idea to become like the UK - we are better than that. Broad brush and blatant generalization. Democratics are also responsible for war deaths. Why are we still escalating in Afghanistan and losing lives ?
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 02:29 PM
correction:
that can be done withOUT sucking off the teet of Big Government & becoming more a nanny state..
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 02:31 PM
So KS should we repeal, Hill-Burton and EMTALA?
Clearly socialism, since we all end up paying for it?
Or do you believe that?
People with no health-care insurance never get sick.
The health-care insurance reimbursement fairy will leave the money under their pillows to pay for it.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | April 03, 2010 at 03:31 PM
Socaiism does not resonate well with the public. I'll stick with big government liberalism or nanny state. What is wrong with private enterprise ?
If something gets repealed, be is Hill-Burton and EMTALA, it must be replaced with an alternative that involves less government control.
Just as if there are tax cuts, there must be commensurate spending cuts.
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 05:05 PM
I think all of you opposed to "Big Government" should vow never to call the police, the fire department, to drive on paved roads, to visit a library, never mail a letter, don't walk on the sidewalk, stop at rest areas on the freeway ( which you should not drive on anyway since it is a government expenditure, visit a state or national park or public beach, purchase Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies, Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies,boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army, protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees, oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America, and upon reaching the age of 65 promise to tear up their social security checks and refuse to accept Medicare.
Posted by: sparky | April 03, 2010 at 05:31 PM
oh sparkles, why do you not properly attribute the work of others and instead represent it as your own?
and btw, can't you do better than this tired old piece?
jeez, you remind me of that elderly relative that finally discovers the internet and starts mailing all the dated jokes/sayings/stories.
i guess it's time for the garden and no doubt 'irene' or some other poster will show up in a few minutes. LMAO.
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 03, 2010 at 05:43 PM
"If something gets repealed, be is Hill-Burton and EMTALA, it must be replaced with an alternative that involves less government control."
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 05:05 PM
You prefer our taxes not take care of people who get sick and don't have health insurance.
Serious question. Where would the funding for this come from?
Other than charity from some individuals or organizations, I can't think how this would work. In fact unless the individuals or organization did not take the tax deduction we (the taxpayers ) are still indirectly funding it. We could all pay an extra un-insured citizen premium on our health insurance to cover these people but that's just private socialism with it's inherent cost markup instead of public.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | April 03, 2010 at 05:54 PM
Puget Sound can you make your criticism on substance rather than style. Conservatives always talk about small government but neglect to tell us how small government is going to protect us from the excesses of big corporations. By the way, just because we want to regulate private enterprise does not mean we are against private enterprise.
Posted by: gorkri | April 03, 2010 at 06:03 PM
If he did that he would have nothing to say.
Posted by: sparky | April 03, 2010 at 06:34 PM
Smaller government can regulate excesses from corporations just as is being done in some cases now - what's so hard to figure out about that ? When it comes to corporations, the GOP and Dems receive about the same amount of campaign money and both parties are to blame for corporate corruption.
"You prefer our taxes not take care of people who get sick and don't have health insurance.
I didn't say that. There are other ways to accomplish it besides by using the Government. It's just that the Dems were too lazy and too pro-big government to want to adopt another method to pay for those who get sick and don't have health insurance.
No pre-existing conditions was good to adopt. Another way - Private insurance via coops would not mean taxes, but it would mean premiums and the ability to absorb those who aren't covered and need coverage from a large pool of customers
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 06:38 PM
Oh, please Sparkles - enough of the victim-like whining and the faux outrage. You leftwingers are just as much to blame for corporate corruption as the right and when it comes to unions, if it weren't for them - the BFD would not have passed - because of the corruption funded by SEIU.
However, you won't accept that because the White House and its state-run propaganda machine is just too crafty and on top of that they are stupid !!
"Obama isn't the Anti-Christ, he is the anti-Moses, destined to lead us out of the land of milk and honey"
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 06:45 PM
I was neither whining nor outraged. Merely pointing out how much "Big Government" provides much of what we take for granted in society.
When TeaPartiers demand that Big Government take its hands off their Medicare, and when the anti-government militia members in Michigan seek out government-paid legal counsel...the whole movement just looks silly.
Posted by: sparky | April 03, 2010 at 08:23 PM
No pre-existing conditions was good to adopt. Another way - Private insurance via coops would not mean taxes, but it would mean premiums and the ability to absorb those who aren't covered and need coverage from a large pool of customers.
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 06:38 PM
This still depends on the largess of individuals to pay for others who are less fortunate or choose to spend their $$ on other things. Sounds like socialism to me.Or are you OK with that if Private business gets its cut. Sounds like what we just got except the Co-Ops are bigger.
Posted by: EXPatBrit | April 03, 2010 at 09:18 PM
Socaiism does not resonate well with the public. I'll stick with big government liberalism or nanny state.
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 05:05 PM
???
Posted by: mark | April 03, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Another leftist in denial...
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 10:33 PM
"I was neither whining nor outraged. Merely pointing out how much "Big Government" provides much of what we take for granted in society."
I thought you were whining some and showing faux outrage about those who complained about big government along with coming across as self righteous. Your comment about big government shows that you have little discretion about the proper role of Government. Yeah, Government provides a good amount of what we take for granted - fine such as the basic services (of which health care is not included).
However, you fail to comprehend that redistributionist policies are above and beyond what the Government is obligated to do for us. The best thing that the Government can do for us the people is to get out of way and promote a free market economy instead of trying to control it as has become more the case since the beginning of the far-left Administration/ regime since 1/21/09.
Why does Western Europe's economy (in general) only grow 1-2% per year ? Because of big government policies that redistribute income that puts a cap on growth. By contrast, our growth in better years has been upwards of 4% because we had more of a free market system than Western Europe. Basic economics that are trying to be distorted and justified day in and day out by the State-run media, who have no conscience about lieing to us.
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 10:49 PM
I hope POTUS continues to call out nutjobs like Beck from time to time. Why anybody pays attention to a guy that thinks turn-of-the-century dimes and statues/artwork in NYC is indoctrinating folks for socialism is totally beyond my scope of comprehension.
And why hasn't Beck denied that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? I'm just saying what everybody elsee is thinking.
Posted by: Bill | April 04, 2010 at 08:33 AM
Another leftist in denial...
Posted by: KS | April 03, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Well that's a well reasoned answer.
You know what they say if you can't win an argument insult the other person....
You don't have a answer do you? Your financing of health-care is fairy dust.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | April 04, 2010 at 08:44 AM
oh 'ex pat brit' aka sparkles, why the charade? at least you're not posting the work of others as your own so we have made some progress. next step, stop the multiple id posting. it's positively sybil-esque.
anyhow, KS answered the question but you just don't like the answer.
i love these people that want something and then pass the bill on to someone else. (preferably to someone too young to gripe or even understand the consequences.)
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 04, 2010 at 09:45 AM
Puget Sound.
I asked KS how it would be financed. His answer was a vague answer about Co-Ops and to call me a leftist.
Co-Ops are by definition socialist endeavors.
Your answer rather than to join this discussion is to accuse me of being someone else.
So why don't you pair of wankers run away and hide ?
You see I am really am an ExPatBrit.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | April 04, 2010 at 06:12 PM
putsie, you're starting to accuse others of being someone else. Why not answer the questions instead of claiming a handicap?
Posted by: Coiler | April 04, 2010 at 06:52 PM
You see I am really am an ExPatBrit.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | April 04, 2010 at 06:12 PM
well then, you would be well acquainted with the prescient words of prime minister thatcher, 'the problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of someone else's money.'
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 04, 2010 at 07:45 PM
Laughing here...
Ex-Pat, you and Tigsnort have gotten a chance to see Putsie at his finest. He still cannot comprehend that more than just a couple of people disagree with him.
Posted by: sparky | April 04, 2010 at 08:01 PM
not so much that, rather it's the quantity and familiar tone of some of the usual suspects.
so sparkles, have you learned to properly attribute the work of others yet or are you going to keep passing it off as your own? LMAO
Posted by: Puget Sound | April 04, 2010 at 08:10 PM
Well Puget Sound looks like Margaret Thatcher disliked Co-Ops too.
When I was growing up she was known as Margaret Thatcher - "Milk Snatcher".
Posted by: ExPatBrit | April 05, 2010 at 05:59 AM
I prefer Mark Steyn as an editorial writer. You would probably be quick to ridicule him because he shoots down your standard talking points. However, I would put up his understanding of the issues against you or any of your favored big government liberal treatises that you want to run with in the attempt to rebut Mr. Steyn. Examples will be forthcoming if you so desire.
Posted by: KS | April 05, 2010 at 10:40 AM
I see that the resident statists are mum (i.e. chirping like crickets). Such a pity...
Posted by: KS | April 09, 2010 at 01:42 PM