Newest Edward Snowden Bombshell: Secret Limbaugh Republican Debate Questions Revealed!

Republican leader Reince Priebus, when he is not threatening CNN and NBC to stop their proposed Hillary presentations, has made it clear that he is not comfortable with allowing Republican presidential contenders to engage in endless debates with each other, which exposes the ignorance, extremism, and utter unsuitability of any one of those candidates to become the leader of the free world.

Priebus has, though, declared himself open to the possibility that rabid right-wing radio jocks like Andrea Tantaros and Mark Levin and, God willing, Sean Hannity could host a debate between Republican candidates.

It’s even been suggested that Rush Limbaugh join in. Yippee!

As a former dittohead, as a former Limbaugh listener for nearly 20 years, I have an inside track on just what questions he is prepared to ask at such a debate. Don’t bother to ask me how I got a copy of the questions and commentary below (have you seen Edward Snowden lately?), just sit back and hope that Reince Preibus allows such a possibility to become reality:

LIMBAUGH: Senator Cruz, do you think that women who use contraceptives are, as I have suggested, “sluts”? If not, why not?

LIMBAUGH: Senator Paul, if you ever got a call from Barack Hussein Obama, would you say, as I once said to a black caller, “take that bone out of your nose and all me back”?

LIMBAUGH: Senator Rubio, a caller on my radio show once suggested that you were duped by liberals into supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. Are you that stupid? And speaking of stupid, I had a caller tell me that Republicans should allow you to go on with your amnesty bill because it would appeal to stupid voters? Is that what this party has been reduced to? Appealing to the stupid? Are we the champions of stupid? Wait, don’t answer that. I have another question.

Senator Rubio, I have said that it is just “a matter of mathematics to me,” in terms of your proposal to give amnesty to illegals. These illegals will mostly vote for Democrats and the math works against us Republicans. Why would we want to legalize all those brown people when they are just going to turn around and vote for Democrats? Huh? Is there something wrong with your math skills? Was the Heritage Foundation’s Jason Richwine right about Hispanics like you? 

LIMBAUGH: Governor Christie, why did you swap spit with President Obama, especially just before the presidential election? I said at the time that you were the servant and he was the master. That’s not the way God intended things. You had it backwards. And you tried to make Republicans like me look like fools. Don’t you know that God sent that pre-election hurricane your way in order to alert the rest of the country that liberalism and Obama were bad for the country? And there you were holding hands and cuddling up to him. You’re a disgrace to God and to the Republican Party! What the hell are you doing on this stage?

In fact, what am I doing on this stage? I’m too damned famous to moderate these debates.

limbaugh and debates



  1. If El Rushbo does get the call, no cigar will be big enough! His obese physique will at last be outsized by his ego.


  2. ansonburlingame

     /  August 17, 2013

    Now just read, again, what Duane led off with above. He said “… engage in endless debates with each other, which exposes the ignorance, extremism, and utter unsuitability of any one of those candidates to become the leader of the free world.”

    He of course was refering to the GOP debates last year showing all in their “rush to the right” to gain “base” support.

    Now let’s go find say about 8 Dems, all rushing to the left in debates to gain support of their “base”.

    God Almighty I would pay money to listen to such claptrap as Sharpton/Jackson calls for MORE “black rights” against say McCaskill!!!!

    Even YOU progressives would cringe, in the privacy of your own homes, while I would be taking notes like a mad man to write a blog, such as the above!!!!



  3. It is comments like this that make me wonder if your excercise regime consists of avoiding men with butterfly nets:

    “God almighty I would pay money to listen to such claptrap as Sharpton/Jacksonclass for “MORE black rights” against say McCaskill!!!!”

    I have no idea what specifics are entailed in “MORE black rights”. Could these rights be voting, using public restrooms or holding the office of President? I am certain that Sen. McCaskill would not take either of your “Scary Negro” strawmen to task for suggesting that black citizens share the same rights as white folks. When black controlled state legislatures pass laws designed to suppress the votes of white constituents, then your paranoid fear would rise to the level of genuine concern. Until that unlikely event occurs, may you stay net-free,


    • Nicely put, Juan, but you forgot several black rights:

      Drinking from public water fountains.
      Using public swimming pools.
      Sitting in the fronts of busses.

      It’s just “gimme, gimme, gimme”. When, oh when will it stop? 🙄


    • Juan,

      Anson, from the land of both hard and soft bigotry, Kentucky, slipped on the keyboard equivalent of Freud’s tongue. Or something like that. When your typing along, weighing in on matters of race, naturally it occurs to you to type “MORE ‘black rights.'” But I’m afraid even Freud would have a hard time discerning just why the MORE had to be shouted at us, since we all know black folks should simply be grateful we rescued them from Africa. How could they want MORE than THAT?



  4. ansonburlingame

     /  August 18, 2013

    You two, and probably others herein, know quite well that if Zimmerman and Martin had both been black (or white or Hispanic) men there would have been NO public outrage in that event. And more than likely the “shooter” would have never been charged in the first place by Florida police.

    That tragedy ONLY became very public and huge public outrage expressed when Sharpton. Jackson, the Black Congressional Cacus, etc. started raising all matter of hell.

    Have you two EVER seen Sharpton, Jackson, etc. raise hell when the rights of a white person were clearly violated? How about the NAACP?

    I am all for Civil rights for ALL citizens of America, equally under the law, period. I submit that Zimmerman received exactly that, equality under the law of the State of Florida. I expect you disagree. But had Martin been a white man, you would have never engaged in that tragedy, in my view.



    • . . . if Zimmerman and Martin had both been black (or white or Hispanic) men there would have been NO public outrage in that event.

      Quite right, Anson, there wouldn’t. You choose to ignore a central fact of the case, which is that the homicide only took place because the adult Zimmerman unjustly racially-profiled the teen-age Martin. The only reason Zimmerman was acquitted in my opinion was that there were no witnesses to the crime.

      So, that begs the question, why should race be an issue in this case? It’s because a century and a half since the Civil War, racism is still a major problem in this country. I think the President described it very well on a personal level when he talked about his feelings as a young black man (not so long ago) relative to being followed suspiciously in a department store and hearing car-door locks actuated when he walked by. But if that’s too subtle for you, look no farther than the new voter-ID law in NC which is blatantly designed to suppress minority votes. Or, perhaps the crowd reaction to the recent Obama-clown rodeo incident. Racism lives in twenty-first century America, it’s just less blatant than poll taxes and literacy tests. And, I must point out, I find it strange that I should even have to spell these things out to anyone.


    • King Beauregard

       /  August 18, 2013

      “And more than likely the “shooter” would have never been charged in the first place by Florida police.”

      A black man shoots a black kid … ? He would have been arrested, drug-tested, and charged by 10am the next day. And it never would have made the national news, that’s for sure.

      I remain astonished at how you think blacks have scored some sort of great deal in this country, where they get treated better than whites by law enforcement. Just a reminder, Zimmerman was not arrested, not charged, not tested for drugs or alcohol, and his weapon wasn’t even confiscated. Zimmerman was treated pretty much like a man who had been forced to shoot a rabid dog, not a man who shot a kid to death for reasons that were unclear at best.

      You’ll be pleased to know, Anson, that I have found a poll by Fox News that proves at least 45% of Republicans are racist. Check out the second to last page, question six:

      If you have a favorable opinion of George Zimmerman, it pretty much means you are a racist, whether or not you realize it. The only way to have a favorable opinion of Zimmerman is if you think he was doing more or less the right thing, even if you don’t like how it turned out … and 45% of Republicans view him favorably. But we both know that his favorability would drop to about 0% if he had been trailing a white teenager just for wearing a hoodie; even you would think he was a dangerous lunatic. If 45% of Republicans flip from “unfavorable” to “favorable” based on skin color alone, that’s 45% of Republicans who let racism do the thinking. AT LEAST 45%; there could be racists lurking among the “unfavorables”, “can’t says”, and “never heard ofs”.

      I’m sure you’ll protest my conclusion, but you know what? Your party has practiced the Southern Strategy for 40 years now; it’s time either to own up to it and be proud of the GOP’s racism, or to reject the GOP and what it actually stands for. Since you won’t do the latter, I encourage you to be openly proud of the GOP’s racism.


      • King Beauregard

         /  August 18, 2013

        … my bad, question six is on page 10 of 14. But I am 100% right about everything else I said.


      • Thanks King for that Fox poll reference. It led me to today’s post.


        • King Beauregard

           /  August 27, 2013

          You know what my favorite part of that poll is? There is no better predictor of being a Zimmerman supporter than being a Republican. Neither gender, nor income, nor age, nor even race tracks with Zimmerman support like being a Republican does. Then again, after 40 years of the Southern Strategy, one has to start thinking of the GOP’s racism as a feature and not a bug.


        • King Beauregard

           /  August 27, 2013

          And as for the heroic Mr. Zimmerman himself, remember how he helped those people out of a burning vehicle … ? Turns out that was an attempt at PR, just like I thought. There was a vehicle on its side, and people did help the occupants out almost immediately … but Zimmerman was not among those helpful people. (The 911 calls attest to non-Zimmerman people being on the scene, taking care of business.) The official police report shows a complete absence of Zimmerman in the affair. What appears to have happened is that Zimmerman got a call from a buddy on the Sanford police force, Patrick Rehder, who told him to show up so he could be called a hero.

          All of which should have been obvious; the only people who bought that whole cock-and-bull story were people emotionally invested in Zimmerman being a paragon of heroism. (Said heroism, it’s worth repeating, consisted of stalking a teenager for being black, and later killing him.) But the reality is, Zimmerman is a deceitful opportunist, and at least some in the the Sanford Police Department are bending over backwards to make Zimmerman look good.


  5. ansonburlingame

     /  August 19, 2013

    I do NOT have a favorable opinion of Zimmerman and where you got such a crazy idea is beyond me. I DO think Zimmerman received a fair trial however and was found innocent of murder or man slaughter.

    Let me be even more clear. I SUPPORT neighborhood watch programs. But I do NOT support such “watchers” legally carrying deadly weapons. They should ONLY be “armed” with cell phones, today, anywhere.

    Jim, you showed your bias by stating that Zimmerman “unjustly profiled Martin”. There was not a shred of evidence showing such. No one knows what Zimmerman would have done had Martin been a white kid or Hispanic one as well. LIke it or not, and obviously most of you do not like how justice was delivered in Florida in this case, Zimmerman was found innocent in a fair trial.

    You don’t like the Stand your ground law, either. Great, go change it, peacefully. Note however the “statistics” showing black on black killings using stand your ground as the defense. You NEVER raised any hell over THOSE shootings, now did you, or Jackson, Sharpton, etc. as well.

    And yep King implies that I am a racist, like supposedly 45% of the GOP. See how progressives leap on that word.



    • King Beauregard

       /  August 19, 2013

      “If you have a favorable opinion of George Zimmerman, it pretty much means you are a racist, whether or not you realize it.”


      If you do not, then good for you; you belong to the 27% in that poll. That said, I repeat this part, which does apply explicitly to you, Anson Burlingame: it’s time either to own up to it and be proud of the GOP’s racism, or to reject the GOP and what it actually stands for. Since you won’t do the latter, I encourage you to be openly proud of the GOP’s racism.


    • @ Anson,

      You said,

      Jim, you showed your bias by stating that Zimmerman “unjustly profiled Martin”. There was not a shred of evidence showing such.

      Yes there was. This is from the Orlando Sentinel’s trial coverage dated July 2:

      SANFORD — In a phone call with a police dispatcher minutes before he shot Trayvon Martin, murder defendant George Zimmerman said off-handedly, “[Expletive] punks.”

      On Tuesday, that phrase became one of the most important of the trial so far.

      Chris Serino, the Sanford police detective who led the homicide investigation, told jurors that when Zimmerman said it, that showed the Neighborhood Watch volunteer had “ill will” toward Trayvon.

      Up to that point — although they had put on more than six days of testimony — prosecutors had failed to show one of the key elements they must prove to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder: that the defendant acted with a depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will toward the high-school junior from Miami Gardens.

      Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda suggested that when Zimmerman called Trayvon a “punk,” he was profiling the teen as a criminal.

      “If I were to believe that somebody was committing a crime, could that not be profiling that person?” de la Rionda asked.

      “It could be construed as such,” said Serino.


  6. ansonburlingame

     /  August 20, 2013


    I do NOT support racism. But I define racism differently for how you seem to define it. As well I do not support the GOP, all the time, nor Dems most of the time, either. I have repeatedly said that I am an “independent”, polticially. I have become more so in the last five years as well.


    As for your quote from a newspaper, we have been down that path before. Calling someone a ….. ;punk is NOT racism. YES, Zimmerman profiled Martin as a “punk” and Martin’s subsequent words (reported in testimony) and actions (reported in testimony) were certainly “punk like” words and actions, in my view.

    When “punks” get followed or called to account by “watchers” they will routinely act like punks, with violence, just as it seems Martin did. He became very verbally abusive and then moved to a physical attack ( according to testimony). Rational people of any race, creed or color of skin do not do that. They do not resort to violence, angry words, etc. in a tense situation, in the dark, alone when confronted by another potential “punk”, which Zimmerman may well have been.

    This whole incident is being used by blacks to show more racism of a terrible sort still prevails in America. Well I think, deep down, Martin MAY have reacted, racially, when confronted by a “white man”. I wonder what Martin would have said and done had Zimmerman had been black. “Hey, brother, I’m not doing anything wrong. Let’s go have a “skittle” together” But he sure did not do that, did he? Why I wonder?

    Blacks in general screamed racism as soon as this incident went viral. Well, like it or not, they were “proven” wrong in a fair trial that found NO racism on the part of Zimmerman. And still they and you want to continue to scream racism, after the full force of law was brought to bear in excrutiating detail on this incident.

    Like Jackson said, had the jury been all black men with a racial ax to grind, so to speak, the verdict might well have been different. That in itself is a racist comment in my view. The trial was “rigged” with only one of six on the jury being black. OMG!!!

    I for one, however, wonder why only six people on a jury. I thought juries were suppose to be 12 men or women. Not in Florida, I suppose, for a murder trial!!!



    • Calling someone ” a ***ing punk” might be racism. It depends on the context, and the context in this case was an unfamiliar young black teenager in a hoodie. Would Zimmerman have stalked Martin had he been a white kid? The jury had to make that judgement based on testimony, but from what I read, I don’t believe he would have, hence my conclusion of racial profiling.

      You said there wasn’t a shred of evidence, but there was. Conclusive? Not for the jury obviously, and maybe not even for me. But yes, the evidence was there. And yes, there was a “fair” trial, meaning one held according to the law as it stands in Florida. I’m fine with that. As I stated, there weren’t any eye-witnesses and that’s why for you to condemn Martin for reacting with violence in that situation is wrong. He was being challenged at night by an armed man in civilian clothes in a neighborhood known for recent crime. He very well might have thought he was being mugged. Flight or fight? Comes down to instinct and I can’t fault fight in this case. You can’t outrun a bullet.


%d bloggers like this: