27
Feb
It might help Obama’s popularity?
Haiti had it coming (like Pat Robertson said)
“Screw em, its their problem, not mine” attitude?
24 Responses to “What Reason Did Limbaugh Give For The Us Not To Assist Haiti Earthquake Victims?”
Leave a Reply
February 27th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Someone might stumble across his involvement with underage male prostitutes.
February 27th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Um, Pat Robertons never said “Haiti had it coming”. As usual, lies suffice when the truth does not fit the liberal agenda. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think it’s the government’s job to decide how we should spend our money. If you want to give a few bucks to a non-profit charity, go ahead. The government should not be our conscience, however, because it is unreliable, and gives it too much power. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, remember?
February 28th, 2010 at 2:58 am
the question I ask is did Rush complain when Bush sent money to Iran after they were devastated by a quake?
I think he’s just mad that it would help Obama’s popularity, I mean if Obama did the opposite he’d be hammered by critics, and this is one allegation that cannot be proven or disproven unless Rush has a tape of Obama happy about the Haiti crisis.
I think Rush is a big hypocrite…….Obama did what other presidents have done before him.
I mean we have given aid to Iran, Egypt, Israel (still do), the Tsunami victims, to the Europeans after WW2 etc etc etc…..and some of them are WAY over 100 million dollars….how come Rush never said those were bad ideas (yes I know he wasn’t around for the WW2 one)
February 28th, 2010 at 3:31 am
1. Obama was only doing it to ingratiate himself to the black community
2. “we have already donated to Haiti, its called income tax.”
Apparently the producers realized that this was a mistake, because AFTER the commercial break he had to cover his tracks and say of course he wasn’t against donating money to Haiti privately. Then after the show producers put up a link to the Red Cross on his website.
February 28th, 2010 at 5:20 am
Rush has a link to the Haitian relief effort on the bottom of his webpage:http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.g…
Apparently, the liberal media has misled you. I was fooled by this story, too. Apparently, Rush supports the relief efforts, but he warned against donating through the White House’s website. Unfortunately, the liberal media incorrectly reported that Rush was against the relief effort.
February 28th, 2010 at 6:29 am
I have not tunes in to Rush for about a year now but l can understand what he meant by that comment or at least l feel that l do, Haiti is a very corrupt, poor and uneducated country and because of that fact it would be very easy for anybody to steal monies given to them. The people will never know or suspect money ear marked for them was stolen. So l think Rushes comment was based on those facts. That the wrong people will get and hoard most of the money for themselves.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:06 am
As you know full well friend, he said Obama could not be trusted with the money. He said that people already gave at the office in that we pay taxes. Why pay more?
I am sure Rush is not against giving to private charities.
I don’t agree with him on this one, but you are taking him out of context as liberals usually do because they can’t formulate a coherent argument these days.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
He never said it. He said that the US GOVERNMENT should not be giving money. He encouraged individuals to give.
This is as it should be. Our tax dollars are taken from us without our consent. To give our money to other countries without our consent (or even legislation to authorize it is wrong)
And do not even pretend to blame this on greed. I donate around 10 times more to charity than the average family earns in a year, and donated 10,000 to the Red Cross for Haiti.
February 28th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
He didn’t say that. You were lied to again by your favorite source of Rush info.
What he said was don’t give it to the government. Give it instead to private charities because more of your dollar will get to the Haitians.
The real question is why do you listen to those sources. As long as you do you will embarrass yourself like you have here today.
February 28th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Do you even try to listen to what he actually said? He said do not send it through government. That is good advice. They all have very sticky fingers when it comes to money.They stole $30,000,000,000,00.00 out of the social security trust fund, and you want to trust them with this money. Are you nuts.
March 1st, 2010 at 12:18 am
He didn’t say that. And Robinson’s charities have given over 4 billion in aid over the past decade,, do you know of any liberal charities that have done as well?
You are very gullible, keith, I feel sorry for you.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:54 am
He doesnt want Obama taking all the credit for the relief
here’s what he said:
Obama will use Haiti to boost credibility with light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country
March 1st, 2010 at 9:20 am
The money is being milked off, that’s why.
Only $1 In Every $5 Of Wyclef Jeans Yele Charity Goes To Haiti
March 1st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
For all the noise liberals make about Fascism, they certainly are adept at Joseph Goebbel’s “Big Lie.”
March 1st, 2010 at 7:50 pm
If you donate through the link on his site he gets a cut of the money…that is why he does not want you to donate anywhere else.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:52 am
Well we all know what his real reasoning is. The people in Haiti have dark skin.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:14 am
theres allready a pot set aside for foriegn aid ,by asking for cash i’s only gonna fill the politicians pockets
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:20 am
@Obama Joker… Yes he did.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:34 am
He said the money would go to dictators and gangsters.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:39 pm
That sums it up
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:25 pm
because they are black
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Maybe he had a change of heart
(SARCASM)
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:43 am
Who gives a flying **** what rush says? we talk about him too much
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:53 am
Rush doesn’t like the poor.