The Rush Limbaugh Appreciation Thread

[Florestan]

"Proper"?

I'd gladly answer your question if I understood it better. 

[CaughtintheGaze]

I'd gladly answer your question if I understood it better. 

When you use such a term and you don't qualify it. It is on you to explain what you mean when you use such a term.

[DavidW]

It honestly sounds like a weasel word invoking the one true Scotsman fallacy.

[CaughtintheGaze]

It honestly sounds like a weasel word invoking the one true Scotsman fallacy.

Well it could be, but knowing the user of the term, I highly doubt that. But any sort of qualifying term can come off as such. Sublime used to be such a term, on this very site.

[Florestan]

When you use such a term and you don't qualify it. It is on you to explain what you mean when you use such a term.

All right, I got it. Then by capitalism proper I understand the economical order in which free market, free trade and competition are uphold in principle as good things and whatever regulation there is seeks to create a legal and ethical frame within which they can go unhampered.

[Geo Dude]

All right, I got it. Then by capitalism proper I understand the economical order in which free market, free trade and competition are uphold in principle as good things and whatever regulation there is seeks to create a legal and ethical frame within which they can go unhampered.

Using this definition I am a defender of capitalism proper, but I must acknowledge that part of that is based not on capitalistic ideas but an extension of my strong social libertarian tendencies:  A government powerful enough to regulate every single aspect of any business (as some want) is also powerful enough to regulate any aspect of the life of their citizens and likely will do so.  That said, while this is a more important concern to me, I also do see those things as good but realize the need for some regulation (when it comes to environmental matters, for example) or common-sense workers' rights type stuff, and, as noted earlier in this thread, I recognize the power of businesses to become their own coercive force if powerful enough.

EDIT:

To get back to the topic at hand, Rush Limbaugh has decided that someone made a point of sending the anti-Muhammad video to the 'Muslim world' with the intent of stirring up anger and violence.  (Not an unreasonable hypothesis.)

The group that did it was drumroll please.................

Obama's campaign workers because they felt that the backlash from it would give them a chance to use the media to portray conservatives as backwards, cruel, Muslim hating bastards.  Just like Obama's campaign crew were the ones who set up the Occupy movement.  Also, Obama being calm when he spoke about the Libyan ambassador's death was evidence that he expected something like this to happen.

I have to admit that this is some great stuff.  I love conspiracy theories for a good chuckle and this one is a doozy!  On the other hand, I become sad when I realize that a lot of people will hear this and believe every word of it.

[eyeresist]

All right, I got it. Then by capitalism proper I understand the economical order in which free market, free trade and competition are uphold in principle as good things and whatever regulation there is seeks to create a legal and ethical frame within which they can go unhampered.

Thanks for qualifying. If there is a legal and ethical frame then capital is not unhampered. There is always the matter of restricting the individual (or corporate) action for the wider good. And laws that enable the uses of capital must by definition also restrict the uses of capital, in the same way the laws that build roads are accompanied by laws mandating how to drive on those roads. True Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't involve roads, but rich people driving tanks and offroad vehicles over the countryside wherever they like

[Florestan]

A government powerful enough to regulate every single aspect of any business (as some want) is also powerful enough to regulate any aspect of the life of their citizens and likely will do so.

I know it only too well, this is why I am not a Socialist.

To get back to the topic at hand, Rush Limbaugh has decided that someone made a point of sending the anti-Muhammad video to the 'Muslim world' with the intent of stirring up anger and violence.  (Not an unreasonable hypothesis.)

The anger and violence that indeed emerged should suffice to see that the so-called Arab spring is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. People who cannot see or make the difference between government and society and who demand the former to censor and suppress a movie don't know what freedom really is and are as unfit for Western-style liberal democracy as it gets.

Thanks for qualifying. If there is a legal and ethical frame then capital is not unhampered. There is always the matter of restricting the individual (or corporate) action for the wider good.

Absolutely. But to restrict is one thing and to impede (or abolish altogether) is quite another.

And laws that enable the uses of capital must by definition also restrict the uses of capital, in the same way the laws that build roads are accompanied by laws mandating how to drive on those roads.

Yes but, to use your analogy, some would want the same laws to prescribe not only speed-limits, but also what cars people should drive, what color should the cars be, what price should they be sold for and in what days and between what hours should they be driven.

True Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't involve roads, but rich people driving tanks and offroad vehicles over the countryside wherever they like

True laisser-faire capitalism never existed nor will it ever do.

[Geo Dude]

The anger and violence that indeed emerged should suffice to see that the so-called Arab spring is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. People who cannot see or make the difference between government and society and who demand the former to censor and suppress a movie don't know what freedom really is and are as unfit for Western-style liberal democracy as it gets.

Sam Harris argued in The End of Faith (back in '05) that it would be pointless to give a Muslim society* a western-style democracy because they would respond by voting in Sharia law en masse.  He seems to have hit the nail on the head based on what's happening with the Arab spring.



*Before someone starts on a rant about racism or bigotry against Islam he was referring to the fundamentalist kind of society that is common in majority Muslim countries, not any and all Muslims.

[snyprrr]

What? What could be more appropriate?

I made sure to get in the car at noon, tee hee,... the big guy,... ah yes, he's taking it well...

[Todd]

He may see a ratings bump, at least for a while.  His advertisers are largely back, so his troubles from earlier this year were just a fluke. 

[petrarch]

In other news, John Cusack may star in and produce a Rush Limbaugh biopic. Hmmmm.

[snyprrr]

OK, so, maybe to clarify from the 'Meltdown' Thread.

QUESTION: Does General Membership think that I am a Believer of, or, in, RL? Or that I am "one of his", or, whatever you people think about... DittoHeads. DO YOU THINK I'M A DITTOHEAD?


I'm just going to assume an overwhelming Yes. No?


So, what do I really think of RL? Obviously, Sarge already knows (titter).


Well, I need to know:

QUESTION: In the Opinion of the General Membership, who/what is RL's "enemy", or chief adversary? As far as the person who counters everything he says, or whatever?


(frankly, I'm not sure of the answer you will give)


How... bout... mmm... how bout just a name- Debbie Wasserman Schultz. That's fair, isn't it? (at least, on the surface) Dershowitz? Clinton?




The point I will be making here is that RL is JUST LIKE his own propped up enemy. Sure, RL talks about freedom, and keeping your money, and all these things that sound good when compare with... oy...say, mm,... Obama's policies that don't seem to be able to overcome Bush. Sure, who doesn't want to be Conservative with their own money?

But, in times of great upheaval, when lots of things are going on and RL has to do a lot of things at once, you will see him for who/what he is. Just listen to his recent Gaza shows., ENDLESSLY he was on for WEEKS acting like the de facto Apologist for Genocide. He aped every lame "children can't play" meme, every "Israeli soldier twists ankle" meme, every "they're not human but we're childlike innocence" meme... I mean, it was THICK!

But so is Debbie WSchultz.

If there is one thing that ALL "ELECTED" officials of either Stripe seem to come together on, it's that Israel comes First. Whether you are the Dual Citizen Chuck Schumer, or the Dual Citizen Paul Wolfowicz, wow!, Liberal or Conservative doesn't really matter. It's like the Talmud is the Ultimate Freemasonry. Oh- I didn't hit a nerve there, did I? (and a happy "ma ha bone" to you too)


Can I now substitute RL for Hannity? For Hannity is the most obvious example of someone who, whether he believes it or not, is certainly being paid to shill for Israel. I just gotta know you ALL probably despise Hannity, so, I ask you- what of me then?  How am I the "Christian Right Wing Militia Nut" if I can see through RL and SH? I mean, FOX is jewish owned too (yes, Murdoch IS).

So MSNBS is jewish owned, FOX is jewish owned, so... what are we fighting about? What THEY want us to fight about (which is not about how they, through deceptive banking, are destroying the world's economies, yadda yadda, you know... it's all in the 'Protocals of Forgery'.


So, anyhow, to all my Beloved GMG Family: think what you will of me, but pleasePleasePLEASE don't think I'm some Reagen Conservative who hangs on RL's or SH's every word (like some... some... redneck!). IF I EVER WAS ONE... I repeat... if I ever thought differently, the moment Bush Jr. turned his back on the people who elected him (just like Clinton had previously done) I realized the two-sided nature of the double-headed beast.

Left Wing... OF WHAT???

Right Wing... OF WHAAAT???

Thar ain't no double headed eagles no whars in tarnation, so, it must be a Bird of Prey, and YOU are still the FOOD no matter which head is hungry!!


HEGELIAN DIALECTIC- look it up (yea,- I'm the silly old man around here, don't mind me, just zoomin on state grade pharasootikals- wee hee- I'm mad as a hatter!!)

Seriously, at least Greg was forthcoming when he declared that he just didn't WANT to think about this stuff.



Oh, btw- Michael Savage (b. Michael Weiner),- so there!! Mark Levin? puh-leeze


QUESTION: What do you think snyprrr thinks of Chomsky? Finkelstein? Arendt?

[kishnevi]

Rush a de facto apologist for Genocide?

I never knew he supported Hamas,  but I guess I now have another reason to dislike him.

But don't worry,  no one mistakes you for a Limbaughnik.   Limbaughniks maintain an aura of sanity even when they are insane.  You maintain an aura of insanity even when you're sane.

[Todd]

DO YOU THINK I'M A DITTOHEAD?

No, no, no.  Sometimes, though, I think you may be a ____head.

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't care what anyone thinks. I've learned it doesn't matter. This probably puts me in the Snipper Camp, but I don't really care about that, either. Will Zion rise or fall based on my ill-informed and probably prejudiced opinion? Or on yours?  Likely not.

Greg, for all his disturbing naivete, is probably the most foresightful of us when he says he doesn't think about it. No harm done, I say. 

[lisa needs braces]

Michael Moore, perhaps, or, though he's not a political figure, Dawkins. That said, Dawkins and Chomsky are in a different class by virtue of brainpower; Bill Maher is somewhat similar but his attempts at humor are generally better; the #1 liberal I can think of who combines sneering idiocy, blatant hypocrisy, aging whiteness, and a torrent of unending hatred, is... uh... crap. Keith Olbermann! There we go.

The problem with Bill Mahler is that he's something of a Jewish Nationalist on the question of Israel/Palestine. It's a bit hilarious (and sad) watching him go full Neocon/anti-Muslim mode to airhead celebrities and pundits too glad to get any airtime and who won't really challenge him. Maher is smart enough not to allow people who would REALLY out debate him on the show, lest he be habitually subjected to the kick between the teeth that Glenn Greenwald gave him (time stamped):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYGrkvUJf8w#t=7m22s


Hmmm...wonder if Glenwald will ever be invited back, or, for that matter, if Maher will ever invite actor Russell Brand (who is eloquent and is one of the most politically engaged celebrities.)

Here is Russell Brand humiliating MSNBC dunces who try to talk down to him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2eDj39q0Fo

Give that man a show!