Few words for this one...
I'm not going to even introduce this:
Liberals want to "tear apart" the country?
They want liberals to leave?
Because we won and we are trying to fix things? To educate people? To help the poor and the sick? To end the futile wars that have taken thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of foreign lives?
How messed up is it that those who are trying to pick up the pieces are getting demonized like this? Liberals are murderers and rapists and Muslim's who kill their wives? This guy is on crack.
Rush is crazy; pure and simple, unadulterated loony tunes.
And people call the left bad for refusing to buy into their fear.
Flush can go fluck himself. I don't know what flucking is, but he can go right on ahead and do it.
17 comments:
I honestly don't know how he actually believes what he's saying. And others believe it, too! I just don't get it. He's delusional!
I can't even listen to him. He is an unadulterated lunatic.
Skye.. you are so much like me. I get myself all twisted up by these things as well, but in the long run if you really stop and think about it, Flush (BTW,I love that) is acting even loonier now because he is scared shitless that some of his followers might actually start to trust Obama, then what will he do if no one is there to listen. It's like what that old Vietnam War Poster used to say:
"What if they gave a War and nobody came."
What if Flush tried to rant and no body listened? Now THAT would be justice.
Flush (I agree with willpen, that's just genius) and Mann Colter should be locked up in the looney bin. Bill O'Reilly can join them.
It's scary that people listen to this ignoramus but they do.
I hope Willpen is right, but he seems way too egotistical to be worried to me. I really do think that the GOP believes that if they pull the same dirty tricks,obfuscation and negative attacks that they did with Clinton that they will win Congress back.
I have enormous faith in the American people, but they have gone for the fear and divisiveness before. They seem to buy their sound bite mentality and arguments that have no rational relation to facts.
That is why I get twisted up too. So thanks Skye and Willpen for not letting them get away with things like this. It has to end.
I hope this is an ok time for me to present a different perspective -- respectfully, of course.
First of all, he said 'so many liberals'. He wasn't talking about people like you who have decent intentions for our country. He's talking about certain liberals in the government that he believes have less than patriotic intentions for our country.
Also, Rush didn't say that liberals are rapists and murderers and Muslims who kill their wives. He only used the example that we need not know the 'why' of something to believe it needs to stop. It was extemporaneous speech to make a point. No one who listens to Rush would have thought he was calling liberals murderers etc.
And the only reason that the lady caller said 'why don't they leave' was in response to Rush saying that these specific liberals are looking around and hating the country. I've heard from liberals that I've talked to numerous times that if I don't like the fact that Obama is president that I should leave. Does that mean that liberals just want me to leave?
Isn't it sort of the same thing? Saying to the other party 'if you don't like it, why don't you leave'? It's not that we want the other to leave -- it's just saying that the option is there for them.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents worth. I hope you're feeling better, Skyewriter.
Driftwood, Who are the liberals he's been talking about. You see, President Obama was referred to as a socialist during the campaign and conservatives often refer to Democrats as socialists.
While he didn't refer to liberals as rapists and murderers, you have to admit that the analogy was odd and that the negative implication was that the intent behind the grab for power was similar to criminal activity. So he might not have been calling Democrats that,but the implication of nefarious criminal intent was rather obvious. Also, you have more faith in his listeners ability to pick up nuance in language than I do.
The answer is never to tell any American that they should leave the country. That is not a response that resolves problems. I don't want you to leave. By the way, I detest labels because I think people are far more complicated than reducing them to a singular term "liberal" or "conservative." I think that when people discuss their views, there is much more common ground than we think or at least I have found that to be the case with my conservative friends.
The bottom line is leaving the country is not an option and does not promote any kind of a discussion of real issues.
Driftwood,
Check this out:
http://catherinemacivor.com/2009/02/20/you-are-a-republican-if/
and this:
http://catherinemacivor.com/2009/02/20/bizarre-quotes-from-politicians-and-pundits/
(the Limbaugh, Coulter and McCain quotes)
http://catherinemacivor.com/2009/01/31/rush-limbaugh-is-a-republican-liability/
There's more but that's a start
Who are the specific liberals? I can only guess the ones he names on the show. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc.
The problem I saw with the stimulus bill is that it grows our government to monumental proportions. It gives too much control over the private sector to the people in Washington, which smacks of a further push toward socialism than what we've already had in this country. And socialism has never really worked in any country it's been tried in.
I'm sure you saw the Newsweek cover and article that stated, 'We are all socialists now'. My understanding is that this is viewed as a good thing by a lot of people. I don't know what the general feeling about socialism is among the readers of this blog, but it is of concern to me.
I guess I'm not as concerned with labels such as liberal and conservative as nothing more than an identifier of a belief system. I wouldn't like either if used as a slam though.
I'll be happy to look at your articles.
I just reread and noticed this more clearly:
the negative implication was that the intent behind the grab for power was similar to criminal activity.
I just wondered if this was an admission on your part that there is a power grab going on? I see it that way, and it concerns me. I would rather see our elected officials concerned with the will of their constituents than concerned with their own power in Washington. I would be concerned to see this in either party.
Driftwood,
The "power grab" language was taken from the Rush Limbaugh video. I have not seen many Republican administrations that give a flying you know what about anyone other than the Christian right and the rich.
As for the socialism issue. What is your preferred method of handling this mess then? I am just curious. Every economist agreed that a stimulus was absolutely necessary, including the conservative Paul Volcker who is issuing alarming statements about the state of the global economy. It is very easy to sit back and say "Oh, I don't like the stimulus because it's socialism." It's a label. Since when is approving our infrastructure socialism?
There are many who would say that Canada is socialistic. They are solvent and are not having the economic problems that we are. So I ask you, what is better?
Volcker just said that the free market system with less regulation is not working because there have been 5 failures prior to this big one and that underscores a system-wide economic fail that cannot be left to its own devices to self-regulate.
The tax cuts to the wealthy grew the deficit as did the very unnecessary war. I did not hear any concern about spending during the Bush days, but when it is absolutely necessary, now I hear concerns about the deficit.
As for labels like liberal and conservative are an "identifier in a belief system." That view is an extremely simplistic way of breaking things down. I think people are far more complex than that. As I said the other day, there is not much difference between me and my friends who call themselves conservatives so the labels are totally meaningless.
I won't argue the label issue. I completely agree that they can be too simplistic. I just meant really that I have no trouble being called a conservative, as that is what I am. I just dislike what happens when labels are used to slam someone.
I have not seen many Republican administrations that give a flying you know what about anyone other than the Christian right and the rich.
That may be your perception, but it isn't mine. I think the focus is in free market principles and personal responsibility. I'm not saying every Republican administration has done everything right, but neither has every Democratic administration.
Every economist agreed that a stimulus was absolutely necessary
That simply isn't true, though I know that's what Obama said and the MSM parroted. Click here and here for more.
As far as it goes with Canada, I have read that their economy is better right now, but their nationalized health care system is not. And there were things in the stimulus bill that will turn us toward socialized medicine, which would present problems in obtaining necessary health services and in a timely manner. The health care portions simply didn't belong in this bill.
Personally, I had concerns over spending during the Bush administration as well. But, I do appreciate the fact that we have been kept safe on American soil since 9/11.
Nobody knows who he is referring to and I am not sure he does either.
As for the label issue, my point was that labels are used to divide rather than create a dialogue about issues. If we think in terms of issues rather than labels, I doubt some conservatives would be calling Democrats "un-American."
Personal responsibility is hardly unique to conservatives. As for free markets, did you see the conservative Paul Volcker's statements about that? He says the financial industry needs to be regulated in the US and worldwide because of several false bubble markets and multiple economic failures up to and including this one.
I should have said that every economist who is worth anything at all, conservative and progressive. I don't care much for an economist from Oklahoma University or Florida State University or the like. That is just a but better then Joe the Plumber as far as I am concerned because if they were respected, published and had the credentials, they would not be at those schools.
I don'tthink of affordable helath care for all as socialism, but in any event what aspect of the stimulus do you contend constituted socialism?
The Canadian economy is not just better it is doing well.
As for being kept safe, 9/11 happened under George Bush and he had a brief on August 6, 2001 that he glanced at that warned of attacks by planes. That was on his watch. as for the remainder of the years, there is no evidence that he did anything to make us safer and, in fact, there is significant evidence that he made the world far more dangerous.
That's it for me Driftwood. I'll go back into my grey world and return you to your black and white world.
Sorry to have left the shop today.
I am getting ready for my hubby to return.
I think it's interesting that this thread turned into a back and forth about universal health care.
I have been doing some heavy duty research on it this week and read the HR 676 bill that will soon be getting air time again.
Some food for thought:
Of the Americans in foreclosure, some 60% of them are spending over 40% of their monthly income on health costs. Some food for thought before I post tomorrow.
Thanks Catherine for holding up my end of the conversation today and for driftwood keeping my eyes on the prize, so to speak.
The US is the only industrialized nation without universal health care and the WHO has some very dismal stats on the state of US health care.
Another myth: the US is not #1 in terms of the best care. It way down on the list in many aspects.
Health care is a right not a privilege.
I'll be back tomorrow. I've got some interesting graphs and pretty charts and even a quiz.
Good nite all.
I don'tthink of affordable helath care for all as socialism, but in any event what aspect of the stimulus do you contend constituted socialism?
Affordable health care for all would be wonderful, but the nationalization of it has reaped many problems in other countries where people are on waiting lists for needed services. And a large problem with socialized medicine is that the people who work the hardest in a society are taxed heavily to pay for the health care of those who refuse to work. As far as the parts of the stimulus that contribute to socialism in my view? The enlargement of government control and oversight of the private sector. And the control to be exerted over doctors.
The Canadian economy is not just better it is doing well.
When I said better, I meant better than the US.
I can't say a lot about Paul Volcker except that I have my doubts as to his abilities due to the way he handled the economy in the Carter/Reagan years.
That is just a but better then Joe the Plumber as far as I am concerned because if they were respected, published and had the credentials, they would not be at those schools.
That seems to be a pretty black and white statement to me. I don't judge a person's intellect or their contribution to an argument by where they went to college or whether they've been published. Many extremely intelligent people have been limited by their circumstances, and conversely, many average students have attended Ivy League schools with their rich daddy's money.
I'm not sure why you think I see things so black and white. It seems that Obama is the one who saw the stimulus as a black and white issue with all the scary talk that 'we must pass this immediately because of this crisis worse than the great depression!' If anything, I saw the stimulus as grey -- something we should have tinkered around a little more with and maybe even let everyone who voted actually read first. I linked to the list of economists to show that it was hardly a consensus that we needed this huge stimulus bill.
Anyway, I really am not trying to argue. It's clear we will probably continue to see this differently. So I take my leave of this convo.
Driftwood--How would you feel if someone said that about all Republicans? How would you feel if someone said that on television about all Republican Reps and their supporters? Would you be so content to split hairs then I wonder?
That goes back to this premise of Minimizing.
Rush is Using a very overt form of Propaganda to do the following: Demonize the Party he doesn't support, by Scapegoating them, and in doing that he hopes that people who fall for the demonizing scapegoat scheme will jump on his "BandWagon."
How is it, that you, or people like you are going to have civilized dialogue with people like me, or skywriter in the presence of that kind of vitriolic hatred and venomous diatribes? Is that supposed to soften us up to your perspective? Or is Rush simply making it more difficult for you to come to places like this and have that healthy, 2 way discussion?
Because honestly Flush Limpburger pisses me off. And when I see people defending his bullshit, they piss me off too. Explain to me how that makes our National Dialogue more productive and doesnt end with both sides attempting to throw each other under a train for fun.
Rush is a fat media Whore. You shouldn't defend him because he makes you look bad. He has made all your impressions for you. Defending him on any level only reifies that perception in others like myself.
This is not an attack, but an observation. I hope you take it in the spirit in which this is offered.
How would you feel if someone said that about all Republicans?
I already pointed out that he didn't say 'all' liberals, and I know he didn't mean all liberals.
How is it, that you, or people like you are going to have civilized dialogue with people like me, or skywriter in the presence of that kind of vitriolic hatred and venomous diatribes? Is that supposed to soften us up to your perspective? Or is Rush simply making it more difficult for you to come to places like this and have that healthy, 2 way discussion?
I don't view what he says as 'hateful' and it doesn't inspire a bit of hate in me. I've been doing fine here listening to the other side. To be honest, I hear an angry, vitriolic perspective a lot from Olberrmann.
He has made all your impressions for you.
That's not true, and a bit insulting. He states his own opinion, which he is entitled to do in this free country we live in. I don't even listen to him every day. He doesn't need my defense -- I only explained my take on what he means.
Should I say that Olberrmann or Maddow are media whores and assume that they have made all your impressions for you?
The Difference is that I am not defending Olberman or Maddow.
You are Defending Rush Driftwood.
This is what you are defending:
On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to Barack Obama as a "magic negro," citing an L.A. Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Obama was filling the role of the magic negro, and that this explained his appeal to voters[45]. Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon.[46] Limbaugh had previously referred to Obama as "Halfrican American", a term which he also applied to actress Halle Berry. Limbaugh cited the Ehrenstein editorial, and said that the point of the comment was to highlight "race-obsessed Democrats", who had questioned whether Obama was black enough.[46]
Rush is not a Journalist, he is a shit stirrer, and yet he is referred to as the Leadership of the GOP even though he is a racist, sexist asshole. Truth in Advertising?
I dont Watch Maddow or Olberman, so here are some quotes I dug up:
We enveloped our President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected — indeed, those who did not believe he had been elected — willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship. And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.[48] {notice no reference to Magic Negros or Feminazis?
Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger, yet you have weakened that ability, you have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger. This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand. For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and to your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act. You. By your own terms and your definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You got to have this law, or we're all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.[49]Olberman {Yes, making America, Not Free Anymore, would be a philosophical win for the terrorists, most reasonably educated Adults recognize this}
During the same commentary, Olbermann stated: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it. There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You're a fascist — get them to print you a T-shirt with 'fascist' on it. What else is this but fascism?"[49] {Mussolini would be so proud}
Olberman is critical of the--then Sitting President of the United States and his fundamental ignorance of American Political character. Rush is consistently attacking Minorities and political figures for being minorities, but he doesn't premise his attacks on cricizing their political ideologies, because that can all be explained by their minority status.
One is an expert on the Ad Hominen Attack, {Rush Limbaugh} and the other is simply outraged by the attacks on his civil rights and our fall from grace as a beacon of freedom. Hmmmm.
If I have to choose, Olberman can make my impression, Rush, I won't even call him an American. He's a Meth Head Archie Bunker.
Rachel Maddow is Openly Gay--Well I can see how that would shock some. I served in the military, there are lots of Gay men and women Patriots. I am not ashamed to have someone like that speaking up on my behalf. I have not yet found any controversial Quotes by Maddow but lets revisit Rush Shall we? Oh He of the Magic Negro?
These are from Wikipedia:
Feminism is the radical notion that feminists are women. -Rush Limbaugh
{Apparently feminists like myself are not People--Nice}
Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society. -Rush Limbaugh {and I am ugly too, I shall have to inform my husband}
More Magic Negro Comments: Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.
Response to a black caller he was having a hard time understanding in the 1970s when he worked under the name "Jeff Christie" on a top-40 music program in Pittsburgh, as quoted in Newsday (8 October 1990) where he expresses some remorse at having said it; also in The Way Things Aren't : Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error (1995) by Steve Rendall, Jim Naureckas, and Jeff Cohen [ISBN 156584260X] , "Limbaugh : A Color Man Who Has A Problem With Color?" by Jeff Cohen and Steve Rendall in FAIR and The Los Angeles Times (6 July 2000), and "Bone Voyage" at Snopes.com (4 September 2007)
The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.
As quoted in Flush Rush Quarterly (January 1993) and in "Limbaugh : A Color Man Who Has A Problem With Color?" by Jeff Cohen and Steve Rendall in FAIR and The Los Angeles Times (6 July 2000), and in "Off Sides" by Michael Tomasky in The American Prospect (16 July 2003)
Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
As quoted in "Limbaugh : A Color Man Who Has A Problem With Color?" by Jeff Cohen and Steve Rendall in FAIR and The Los Angeles Times (6 July 2000), and at "Bone Voyage" at Snopes.com (4 September 2007)
{I dont think Rush likes Black People or Women--I just get that funny Feeling from him, nothing I can put my finger on}
Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.
As quoted in "Hey Rush, when it comes to sports ... shhh!" by Mike Freeman at CBS SportsLine (27 January 2007) {Wow so this is the New-Old Face of the Republican Party--Strom Thurmond must be wanking off in Heaven Right now}
Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.
(5 October 1995); also quoted in The Palm Beach Post (7 December 2003)
{I would say that is the pot calling the kettle black, but I can only imagine how that might upset him}
I'm going to tell you, what's good for al-Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today. That's how you boil this down. And it doesn't have to be al-Qaeda. What's good for terrorists is good for John Kerry. All you got to do is check the way they react.
(15 March 2004) {I had no idea that when I registered as a Dem--that I was also joining Al Quaeda}
We're not sexists, we're chauvinists — we're male chauvinist pigs, and we're happy to be because we think that's what men were destined to be. We think that's what women want.
(15 April 2004) {yes he would look like someone who knows what women really want]
They oughtta change Black History Month to Black Progress Month and start measuring it.
(27 February 2006)
Liberal talk radio is nothing more than a pimple on the rear end of a pig.
(19 May 2006) {so Spaekith the pig}
He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act... This is really shameless of Michael J Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting.
About Fox's Parkinson's Disease, referring to his appearance in Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill's political ad (23 October 2006), as quoted in "Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox ad for MO Dem: 'Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting'" at at Media Matters (23 October 2006)
Explain to me how Olberman or Maddow can possibly be lowered into the same catagory as Flush? Because I don't see it. Not even if they took to juggling kittens and chainsaws.
Post a Comment