Limbaugh awarded free website subscription to caller who said liberalism is "rebellion against God" and who described Democratic leaders as "pimps"
On the September 30 broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio show, a caller described liberalism as "a form of mental illness" that is "actually a type of rebellion against God and virtue through the justification of ... immorality, things like abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, prostitution, racism, even race-centered thinking." After confirming that the caller was black, Limbaugh paraphrased the caller's comments, saying, "So liberalism is a mental illness. It's borne of people that do not like any judgmentalism against their depravity." The caller then described Rev. Jesse Jackson, radio hosts Tavis Smiley and Tom Joyner, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), "all of the Democratic delegation up there in Congress", "the [Sen.] Ted Kennedys [D-MA], and "anybody who's in the leadership position in the Democratic Party" as "pimps" who attempt to deceive black people into remaining on the "Democratic plantation."
The caller then reiterated his contention that Democratic leaders are "all mentally ill." He added, "The Bible actually calls them 'fools' because they're rebelling against virtue and God. Now, I'm not calling them fools, I'm just saying the Bible calls them fools." After Limbaugh said, "If the Bible can call them fools, you can echo the Bible," the caller revised his statement: "I'm calling them fools through the Bible."
Limbaugh was so pleased with what he described as "one of the greatest oral final exams and dissertations ever presented" to the "Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies" that he rewarded the caller with a free one-year subscription to the Rush 24/7 website (a $49.95 value).
From the September 30 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: In the meantime, Eric in Charlotte, North Carolina. Welcome, sir, nice to have you on the program.
CALLER: Oh, Rush, you're going to have to carry me through. I've got this too important and juicy to let this be short, but you know, I'm a black American, and I am deeply, deeply saddened and troubled regarding the level of propaganda and deceit that's been thrown at black Americans to keep them on the Democratic plantation. And especially through the comments of the likes of a Charles Rangel.
But before I go into that, I wanted to say something. A few years ago you were trying to look for the definition of liberalism. And I -- my definition of liberalism is that it's a form of spontaneous, triggered mental illness. It's a form of mental illness, Rush. And it's expressed through their moral immaturity, their deceit, and really it's actually a type of rebellion against God and virtue through the justification of things -- of immorality, things like abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, prostitution, racism, even race-centered thinking. And you know, the suppression of --
LIMBAUGH: I tell you what -- hey, Eric? You're on a roll here, and I hate to stop you, but I have to. So if you hold your thought there. We'll take a break and come back and let your dissertation here -- your oral final exam at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies -- go forward unimpeded.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Back now to Eric in Charlotte, North Carolina. You were on a roll. Let me set up for people just joining us. You think liberalism -- and you're an African-American, right?
CALLER: I'm a black American. African-American is a misnomer, no more than just calling white folks, European-Americans. You're an American, you're an American. I'm just darker-skinned, Rush.
LIMBAUGH: Amen. Amen. Amen. All right, so liberalism is a mental illness. It's borne of people that do not like any judgmentalism against their depravity. Take it away.
CALLER: Liberalism is -- exactly. Well, Rush, that's the exact reason why they're coming against you there on CBS the way they do. Because you take a verbal stand for morality and just and, and virtue and so on. They have to make you look evil. It's a form of mental illness. It's spontaneous. It's triggered. These people are normal in every way when you talk to them, but when you get on their little lightning button -- I'll just call it -- that's when they actually take on a form of incognition. They become crazy. It's a form of mental illness. But it's just spontaneous, short-lived, and triggered, and then they're back to normal.
So, it's -- I hate to say that about them -- but that's what liberalism is. Rush, thanks to you, I had a radio program. It was called the Eric Woods program down here in Charlotte on 1110 WBT. Thanks to you, I was the last black man on -- to do a radio show there -- but it's because of you. But I can smell liberals from 10 miles away. I know these people. They are messed up mentally, emotionally because of the fact they have to justify immorality. It's a form of rebellion against God, and so because they're rebelling against God -- that's why they have to justify things like evolution. Because if man came from slime, then they can say they're not accountable to God. So they have to get rid of God. And when you get rid of God -- you elevate abortion, homosexuality, pornography, racism.
[...]
And they're calling this man "Bull Connor," a racist. And they're doing it -- Charles Rangel is doing this because he wants blacks to keep on the plantation. I call it the slave, slave master, slave-liberator mentality. In order for that slave master to keep the slave on the plantation he had to tell them that the North -- the people who were coming down to free them -- I don't want to get into that too much but -- they're saying that, they were saying that the liberators were coming down to kill you and to take you away from your kids. You have to deceive black people to keep them on the plantation.
I -- there's another word I call it. I call it the pimp, the prostitute, and the preacher syndrome. That pimp has to keep the prostitute in his harem by lies. If he can do that, if he can keep that, that prostitute away from the preacher -- he's going to save her, because once she's -- if she start going around -- if she starts going around this, uh, preacher -- she'll stop being a prostitute, and that pimp is going to lose money. He's going to lose business. He's not going to have his cash cow. The Democrat Party uses blacks as the cash cow to keep them in their harem through deceit --
LIMBAUGH: Hey, Eric. Can you, can you think of a modern relationship to this? You've got the pimp, the prostitute, and the preacher. Can you give us some current names that you might say fit that role, fit those roles?
CALLER: Well, clearly, Jesse Jackson, Tavis Smiley, Tom Joyner, Charles Rangel. All of the Democratic delegation up there in Congress -- all of them are the pimps. Now, it includes white pimps as well. You of course have the Ted Kennedys. And you go on down the list of all of those senators. But, now the, but they're all pimps. Anybody who's in the leadership position in the Democratic Party -- they are the pimps, because they try to keep blacks deceived, and so I want --
LIMBAUGH: OK. So, OK, if those are the pimps, who are the prostitutes?
CALLER: Blacks are likened to the prostitutes. I, it's a tough word to use, but I'm not saying that we're prostitutes --
LIMBAUGH: Well, I think I know what you mean. I mean, they're the victims. They, they're the victims. They're the ones, they're the ones that are propping up the pimps financially and, and with power and other things.
CALLER: The victims are -- they are the -- the black people are innocent -- we're the word I preferred to use earlier was, of course, the slave and, and the plantation. I --
LIMBAUGH: OK. So you've got the slave, and you've got the pimp and the pre -- yeah, let's get rid of prostitution. OK. So we've got slave, we've got pimp and we've, we've got preacher. Who are the preachers today?
CALLER: The preachers are the Republican Party trying to tell the truth. The people within the Republican Party and the independents. By the way, I am an independent. I'm not actually a, you know, part of, you know, registered as a Republican. I, you know, I'm an independent, because of the fact that once you're a black Republican, you're considered Satan and all of that, and it's easier for me to talk as an independent, instead of me calling myself a Republican, and they immediately raise up a cross and try to look at me as a vampire and all of that.
But the point is, the Republican Party, by and large, and, and those on the religious right -- those are the preachers and the liberators trying to tell the truth about what the Democratic leadership -- the Democrats are doing to black people. And it's an amazing thing when you really look at it, but they're all mentally ill. It's a mental sickness. The Bible actually calls them "fools" because they're rebelling against virtue and God. Now, I'm not calling them fools, I'm just saying the Bible calls them fools. That's what they are, and these people --
LIMBAUGH: Now, don't hold back there, Eric. I mean, if the Bible can call them fools, you can echo the Bible.
CALLER: That's right. I'm calling them fools through the Bible, but people will say, "You can't call someone a fool." But they don't understand what the Bible says.
LIMBAUGH: Well, who says? You know, that's another thing. Why are we caught up in who says, who says, who, who can say what somebody else can and can't say. Screw that. You know, to hell with this political correctness. You say what you want to say on this program. I'm not going to sit here tell you, "You can't say it." You might be wrong. You might be right. But you can say it. Eric, look, let me -- I've got to run here. Let me ask you a quick question. Are you a subscriber to my website?
CALLER: No, I'm not, Rush.
LIMBAUGH: Do you have a computer?
CALLER: I do have a computer.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you're a subscriber now. I'm going to make you a complimentary one-year subscriber. You have earned it. This is one of the greatest oral final exams and dissertations ever presented to the guy that runs the institute. That's me. You just did a fabulous job out there, and you came prepared, and you didn't stutter around, and you had your passion. You fit the definition of a great caller, and I'm glad to hear from you, Eric. Now, stay on hold, and one of the "preachers" on my staff is going to give you what -- we're going to get from you whatever information we need to make you a complimentary subscriber for a full year.
The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
Media Matters: In which Glenn Beck hosts talk of tickle fights
I don't think Rush even goes to church, does he? Can you spell P-A-N-D-E-R, boys and girls?
Can you spell A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C little one?
The man is completely wrong. Now, let's see if we can talk about his incorrectness, and not the fact that he was African-American (at least, do not use it in a negative way i.e. Harry Belafonte: "Colin Powell is a house slave", etc.).
What should Limbaugh have done? NOT give the man a free whatever he gave him? Wouldn't that be liberal-minded? That isn't Limbaugh, as we all now.
The point is that Limbaugh rewarded a caller who espoused a totally bogus opinion, as if he were revealing some profound truth. It would be like Al Franken rewarding a caller who claimed that Republicans wanted to abort all black babies. Get it?
"It would be like Al Franken rewarding a caller who claimed that Republicans wanted to abort all black babies. Get it?"
No, I don't. I think there are differences between advocation of genocide and labeling liberals the devil. One involves death. The other involves mere name-calling.
I think there are differences between advocation of genocide and labeling liberals the devil. One involves death. The other involves mere name-calling.
Neither of which should be rewarded.
This is just Rush's little "pat on the head" for a kool-aid caller who did nothing but regurgitate rhetoric that we already get enough of from Rush anyway.
It IS significant, and I thank MMFA for reporting it.
Wrong again. Both are examples of name calling, or blatant lies, if you prefer. One person is calling Democrats the Anti-God pimps and Fools. One is calling Republicans mass murderers. I suppose we could argue which is worse, being Anti-God Pimps and Fools, or being mass murderers, but my analogy stands.
The point, again, is that Rush is rewarding an apparent kook who has called his show to spew a bunch of nonsense, which Rush encourages.
Yeah, cuz those things are only engaged in by, and are wholly products of, liberals. (rolls eyes)
Somebody needs to remind Mr. Angry Caller that Jesus Christ was the original liberal.
"Somebody needs to remind Mr. Angry Caller that Jesus Christ was the original liberal."
Excellent point.
Wow!!!
As a mid-thirties black male from South London l have to ask if this is a common viewpoint of those who claim to be of the religious black mainstream in the Southern States?
If it is l will add it to the list of reasons why tourists should shy away from places full of those with such ignorant thoughts. It can be truly said that you guys are doing your best to sit on that rollercoaster of doom heading towards a new dark age.
Its actually pretty unusual. The right has just discovered the brilliant strategy of telling black voters that they aren't smart enough to know what's best for them.
Uk - Just to let you know, not all of us have been suckered by the Right. The South isn't all bad - I hear Atlanta is a great place to visit (I haven't been down south since the '80's)
Actually been thinking more about getting over your way to visit with you Brits. :-)
The NeoCon ship is sinking yet these guys continue to play a lively tune. Good stuff.
So "liberalism" is a "mental illness", and anyone in a leadership position in the Democratic Party is a "pimp"? What childishness. But this is the kind of dialog that Limbaugh encourages. As with other conservative talk radio hosts, Limbaugh plays up emotional appeal and name-calling. As Bush begins to fail more and more, the rhetoric on the right has become more and more hysterical. It's sad, really.
I think Limbaugh's rhetoric has not increased; he's been like this since he started, really.
I agree. Limbaugh has been like this from the beginning. His partisan rambles destroy any attempt at constructive discourse. His job is to keep the dogs barking and growling.
Have you ever tried to have a conversation with one of his die-hard fans? To be fair, I suppose there must be fans of Mike Malloy who are equally misinformed and obtuse.
In this piece, MMFA has provided an example of the real danger posed by people like Rush Limbaugh. He's not just fanning the flames of divisiveness, he's throwing fuel on the fire.
Rush goes far beyond stirring the pot. He's not promoting a political discussion, he's pimping for radical religious extremists.
The crowd this caller belongs to are truly blinded by the light and, given the chance, would turn this country into a theocracy dispensing dark ages idiocy via thousands of madrasas with crosses.
By the way Rush, since all opposition will be banned, you’ll be out of a job.
I totally agree. You're apparently old enough to remember the show "All in the Family". At the time, Archie Bunker was a comical figure, someone to laugh at. Well, for a creepy experience, watch some of the early reruns of that show. Listen to the things Archie says; they sound exactly like the stuff coming from Republicans today. Rush and his imitators have turned Archie Bunker into a role model for young Republicans.
You make a good point. A lot of what Limbaugh says is reminiscent of Archie Bunker. But Bunker was played for laughs, and the storylines generally made Archie out to be the fool he was. Limbaugh, on the other hand, is taken quite seriously by his listeners (I don't know how seriously he takes himself, having never met the man)>
"I totally agree. You're apparently old enough to remember the show "All in the Family". At the time, Archie Bunker was a comical figure, someone to laugh at. Well, for a creepy experience, watch some of the early reruns of that show. Listen to the things Archie says; they sound exactly like the stuff coming from Republicans today. Rush and his imitators have turned Archie Bunker into a role model for young Republicans."...by nerzog
nerzog, as someone who WATCHES the reruns of All in the Family almost EVERY night on TV Land...could YOU please give me an EXAMPLE or TWO of what Archie Bunker has said that "sounds exactly" like the the "stuff" coming from Republicans today???
Am I missing something?
Oh, I don't know....things like calling someone a commie pinko for criticizing the president? Like the episode where he proposed arming all passengers on airplanes to thwart hijackers? I actually saw a conservative poster propose that on another forum right after 9/11. I can't say that I know of a Republican lawmaker who actually proposed it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Referring to his liberal son-in-law as un-American, accusing him of running his country down?
"Oh, I don't know....things like calling someone a commie pinko for criticizing the president? Like the episode where he proposed arming all passengers on airplanes to thwart hijackers? I actually saw a conservative poster propose that on another forum right after 9/11. I can't say that I know of a Republican lawmaker who actually proposed it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Referring to his liberal son-in-law as un-American, accusing him of running his country down?"...by nerzog
Perhaps YOU should have qualified YOUR statement by saying "SOME" Republican posters, NOT just "REPUBLICANS", unless of course YOU can NAME Republican lawmakers that have used that terminology?
I mean I've seen Liberal posters here refer to Republicans as "fascists" and "Nazis"...isn't that just as bad as "commie pinko"????
Some whacked poster suggested arming ALL passengers on airplanes and YOU attribute THAT STATEMENT by them and Archie Bunker to Republicans in general? Oh please...
I'm sure there are those on BOTH the EXTREME Right or Left that say ridiculous things.
Could we ALL be just a bit more careful about "lumping" everyone into ONE category?
"Could we ALL be just a bit more careful about "lumping" everyone into ONE category?"
Fair enough. Certainly, I didn't say "some" republicans; I also didn't say "all" Republicans. On the other hand, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and most conservative talk radio hosts I've heard, DO sound a lot like Archie Bunker, and repeatedly use a broad brush to smear liberals. I hope you are equally disapproving of them.
"Fair enough. Certainly, I didn't say "some" republicans; I also didn't say "all" Republicans. On the other hand, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and most conservative talk radio hosts I've heard, DO sound a lot like Archie Bunker, and repeatedly use a broad brush to smear liberals."...by nerzog
Well...yeah THEY do, on occasion...I mean Archie Bunker said some really nutty stuff...BUT sure I AGREE--THEY do have their "moments". As do SOME Liberals.
I think we can DISAGREE on issues without name-calling and stereotyping.
"I hope you are equally disapproving of them."...by nerzog
Absolutely...I've REPEATEDLY gone after "that trio" (and others) on this forum and will CONTINUE to do so if I think they've gone beyond "good taste" or said something "stupid" or "mean-spirited"...
Hope you'll do the SAME if some Liberal says something "offensive"
by jeter2 - Tuesday October 4, 2005 04:38:09 PM EST
I loved all in the family and my stepfather hated it. He said Archie was made the brunt of all the jokes because he was a worker and made him look stupid because he didnt get a higher education. I always thought they made Archie look very noble, he was shown to be generous and kind hearted with some nutty views that seemed to be borne of frustration. I think that frustration is what shills like Limbaugh mine like electoral gold. It is a shame however that the views that used to be the source of laughter on the show are now shilled like axiomatic truisms by hate radio and Fox News.
The only thing I can say Jeter about the "some" vs "all" lumping is that right now seeing as your party is in the majority and in control, and the rhetoric coming from your party leaders is at times distasteful, It makes one wonder how many of the "rank and file" Republicans do also subscribe to those views.
As long as you (Repubs) have the mic, you dominate the discussion. Your VP talks about destroying Liberals. That doesn't set a very good tone.
Again, I thought we were all Americans. Guess if you're a Liberal, you're some god awful sub-species and there is no "intelligent" explanation for your existence. (i'm being sarcastic, btw with my last parargraph)
Jeter2,
Surely you have heard conservatives mention that they love Archie Bunker even though Archie Bunker was an obvious satire played by a very liberal Carroll O'Connor and All in the Family was created by the very liberal Norman Lear.
I have heard it at least 3 or 4 times hear in Georgia on right-wing talk radio (redundant I know) over the past few years. Whenever it is brought up, there is enthusiastic agreement amongst the hosts that they love Archie Bunker.
Maybe it is just a Southern thing.
"Jeter2,
Surely you have heard conservatives mention that they love Archie Bunker even though Archie Bunker was an obvious satire played by a very liberal Carroll O'Connor and All in the Family was created by the very liberal Norman Lear.
I have heard it at least 3 or 4 times hear in Georgia on right-wing talk radio (redundant I know) over the past few years. Whenever it is brought up, there is enthusiastic agreement amongst the hosts that they love Archie Bunker.
Maybe it is just a Southern thing."...by open_mind
===================
Haha must be a "Southern thing"...I've honestly NEVER heard anyone say they LOVE Archie Bunker for his "opinions/views". He's just ONE of those "lovable characters" we laugh at (doesn't mean we agree with what he says) --just like Louie De Palma (Taxi) or Rosanne (would anyone really want a Mother like her?) or Dan Fielding (Night Court)...you can probably figure out I'm a TV Land/Nick@Nite fan.
"All in the Family" was a remake of a British Show called "Til Death Us Do Part". The main character, Alf Garnett (played by real life Jewish Actor Warren Mitchell) was both apllauded and censured at the time (the late 60's) here in Britian (mainly for the use of the word 'bloody' which at that time was the tv equivalent of the "F" word). His caricature of the "traditional British working man" left out screens years ago and those with his viewpoints stay in the minority due to the fact that even in these times people realise that things are not that bad that such ignorance gets a major toehold with those with more that 60 working braincells. The fact that some over there still spout the same views and are given time on major airwaves without being called on it is quiet frankly chilling.
This guy Limbaugh has been very effective at swinging the pendulum of political thought to the Right in the last decade and a half. This is not a bad thing about America. The strength of the Right in this country will help to make the Left stronger in the long run. Right now the Right is able to exist in the vaccuum of a lack of good alternative ideas from the Left to solve problems.
It becomes increasingly difficult in America to maintain the dominant paradigm over time and eventually the pendulum will swing left again. The only question is when and/or will it be soon enough that the damage can be undone. I am hopeful.
you know rush's dittoheads were just eating it up that this guy was black. "now that's one smart negro, joe bob. just like trent said, things woulda been so much better if everybody voted for thurmond in 48."
Like intellect, stupidity is not restrained by cultural boundaries.
Caller: and they're calling this man "Bull Connor," a racist. And they're doing it -- Charles Rangel is doing this because he wants blacks to keep on the plantation. I call it the slave, slave master, slave-liberator mentality. In order for that slave master to keep the slave on the plantation he had to tell them that the North -- the people who were coming down to free them -- I don't want to get into that too much but -- they're saying that, they were saying that the liberators were coming down to kill you and to take you away from your kids. You have to deceive black people to keep them on the plantation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Many a red flag. This gentlemen is coming out in defense of Bull O' Connor (the one notorious for using high pressure fire hoses on civil rights demonstrators) What's wrong with this picture?
The whole part about liberals wanting to enslave is an absolute LIE. The caller brought up the North then dropped it -why, because he was about suggest (Falsely) that the North actually wanted to enslave rather than free them. We can't let Limbaugh, et al get away with this.
The Dem/Lib strategy since Johnson -- give 'em just enough to stay alive, but not enough to get themselves out of poverty.
I posted this earlier but was blocked from responding. My response will follow, I hope.)
This is going to be a really tough one for you liberals. I have occasionally revealed the fact that liberals are intellectually challenged. Here is a chance for liberals to reclaim their status as “thinkers.” If you just can’t do it, get rid of this post.
We have seen how you people swarm like sharks to the scent of blood whenever Rush says anything either politically incorrect or academically incorrect such as using awkward grammar or whatever. The point here is that you guys on this website are desperately poised to attack Rush whenever the slightest opportunity presents itself.
Your extremely low threshold for criticism of Rush is therefore potentially a very good measure of the accuracy of his statements. That is, any statements he makes that you leave untouched are guaranteed to be unassailably accurate, because if any given statement is even remotely vulnerable you would be all over it.
But you won’t go anywhere near most of Rush’s substantive comments, because you don’t want people to be aware of them.
Sagra then commented in the other post that Rush’s opinions are based on “bad info.”
The “info” Sagra was talking about is of course the information regarding current political events. Whether or not this information is accurate has no bearing on Rush’s opinions.
I certainly can’t presume to speak for Rush but this is my take on it based on what I’ve heard him say. Anyway, most conservatives think this way, and it illustrates a critical difference between liberals and conservatives. Think carefully about this.
Rush’s opinions are the foundation of the content of his show; that is, his guiding principles. His daily commentary regarding current political events arise from these basic concepts; that is, the principles come first. If you follow my explanation you understand that the accuracy of the information Rush presents has no effect on his ideas. Don’t misunderstand me, I am firm in my position that Rush is quite accurate and highly credible. I’m only trying to help you understand the direction of the flow of Rush’s logic. It starts with his principles and goes from there. The logic of the leftist mind flows in the opposite direction.
More points. Liberals hate Rush because he makes them look like fools, and this had never been done before Rush did it. He broke with tradition in this regard. The template had been based on a 60’s perspective in which liberals were seen as open minded, laid back, cool, fun-loving and good natured while conservatives were painted as the clichéd “squares;” conformist, rigid and boring. Rush’s satirical depiction of liberals blew this image to smithereens, and that’s the reason liberals hate him.
Rush makes fun of public figures and doesn’t care about whether or not it’s politically correct. Nothing he has ever said can accurately be described as hateful. When liberals say things like Rush is “hateful,” such comments could not possibly come from anything like a careful and dedicated approach to thinking, and that’s when I know it’s time to reset their IQ scores.
If you liberals can't beat this one, you might as well delete the post or block me from responding.
"The “info” Sagra was talking about is of course the information regarding current political events. Whether or not this information is accurate has no bearing on Rush’s opinions."
What does have an effect on his opinions? If the veracity of his information doesn't make a difference to him, what does? Also, are you suggesting the "info" is just mainstream news stories? I simply don't think that is what Sagra meant, and I think this may be a faulty premise on your part.
"His daily commentary regarding current political events arise from these basic concepts; that is, the principles come first."
What it sounds like you're saying is that he filters everything through his ideology. He throws out or edits anything that conflicts with said views. I think we already knew this.
"If you follow my explanation you understand that the accuracy of the information Rush presents has no effect on his ideas."
If you believe that he is highly credible, this statement is hard to interpret. If the accuracy is consistently present, then the effect should be to support the ideas. But you say it has no effect. It sounds like you're saying that he only talks about stories that fall completely in line with his unshakeable principles. That would make him a blind ideologue, hardly something worthy of praise.
"The logic of the leftist mind flows in the opposite direction."
It's simply bizarre to suggest that liberals don't base their views on principles. Of course they do. Everyone filters information through their principles and mindsets, it's just a question of degree. Logic and fairness are very strong factors for me, but the principle of the matter at hand obviously is the basis for everything. If you are arguing that principle is the last thing that a liberal thinks of, what are you suggesting is the first?
"Liberals hate Rush because he makes them look like fools, and this had never been done before Rush did it."
Liberals hate Rush because he lowers the level of public discourse;he does a disservice to the political process by poisoning the atmosphere. To quote from a great movie, he is a "sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot". He fosters a system of blind belief while avoiding actually debating people, which encourages his dittoheads to behave in an equally irrational manner. You'll notice that this is an overwhelming phenomenon among right-wing pundits and blogs, the avoidance or dismissal of conflicting views;while it is much more common to accept dissenting viewpoints and invite discussion in left-wing sources. Why is that?
"When liberals say things like Rush is “hateful,” such comments could not possibly come from anything like a careful and dedicated approach to thinking, and that’s when I know it’s time to reset their IQ scores."
What's funny is that someone who seems to think so highly of their own intelligence posted this quote on this thread. A caller phones in to spew a sickeningly hateful diatribe, and Rush, who is in complete control of the show, does what? He not only gives him time, but rewards him! Even if anyone truly believes that Rush himself has never said anything hateful, his acceptance and promotion of these views on his program in itself obliterates your argument in a particularly embarrassing manner!
(I had to log on with a different name, had trouble with the Willowtree account.)
Sagra’s comments offered the view that Rush’s opinions somehow are formed from the “info” he presents. “Info” certainly meant the daily content of his show, the facts he presents (it’s news—remember, Rush is America’s Anchorman), which change as current political events change. While we can argue to a small extent whether this news is factual, we can’t state that this daily flux of “info” has any influence on his basic principles, which have been the same from the beginning.
“It's simply bizarre to suggest that liberals don't base their views on principles. Of course they do. Everyone filters information through their principles and mindsets, it's just a question of degree. Logic and fairness are very strong factors for me, but the principle of the matter at hand obviously is the basis for everything. If you are arguing that principle is the last thing that a liberal thinks of, what are you suggesting is the first?”
Here is why I assert that liberals do not stand on principle to the extent conservatives do. It’s a way of saying that liberal politics follows a pattern like inductive logic (forming general principles based on daily life experience) while conservative politics follows a pattern analogous to deductive logic (living in a manner consistent with general principles). A common thread running particularly through the leftist response to life is the validation of “the ends justify the means.” Once this notion is validated, principles take second place. From there, emotional gratification initiates. Very often the emotion is fear. Fear of having to stand up for oneself in the face of a physical threat. Fear of having to earn basic economic independence. Fear of establishing the self confidence required to win life’s battles. Fear of having cojones. Fear of accountability. Fear of an absolute morality. Fear of knowing the human mind (and yes, I’m sorry to have to break the news, the atheist mind) is inferior to God’s.
Brabantio said: “What it sounds like you're saying is that he filters everything through his ideology. He throws out or edits anything that conflicts with said views.”
Rush encourages liberals to call his show.
“If you believe that he is highly credible, this statement is hard to interpret. If the accuracy is consistently present, then the effect should be to support the ideas. But you say it has no effect. It sounds like you're saying that he only talks about stories that fall completely in line with his unshakeable principles. That would make him a blind ideologue, hardly something worthy of praise.”
You’re getting picky with words. I meant “effects” in the sense of “influences.” His daily news, whether it’s accurate, as I state it is, or inaccurate, as you want to claim, does not influence his principles.
“Liberals hate Rush because he lowers the level of public discourse;he does a disservice to the political process by poisoning the atmosphere. To quote from a great movie, he is a "sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot". He fosters a system of blind belief while avoiding actually debating people, which encourages his dittoheads to behave in an equally irrational manner. You'll notice that this is an overwhelming phenomenon among right-wing pundits and blogs, the avoidance or dismissal of conflicting views;while it is much more common to accept dissenting viewpoints and invite discussion in left-wing sources. Why is that?”
This is so false it gives the impression of desperation. I can barely find the motivation to answer it, it’s so baseless and weak.
In fact, Rush highlights conflicting opinions. How can you say he avoids debate? His whole show is a debate. His whole existence is a debate. He debates liberal politics three hours every day. Liberals know him as the most controversial person in America.
To quote a movie is to quote fiction.
“Poisoning the atmosphere” ? “Lowers the level of public discourse” You’re just throwing words without giving examples.
When you describe as “hateful” anything from Rush’s show, what you mean is “politically incorrect.” You are changing the meaning of the word hateful. Political correctness is a sickness. A prison. A cold, hateful dungeon.
The good news is many people are scaling the walls of that correctional institution. As they escape, the leftist influence grows weaker and weaker.
“Even if anyone truly believes that Rush himself has never said anything hateful, his acceptance and promotion of these views on his program in itself obliterates your argument in a particularly embarrassing manner!”
I’m having fun. You’re the one who is apparently thinking about embarrassment.
"Rush encourages liberals to call his show."
That does nothing to speak to the filtering. He does not assimilate contradictory information, which you attribute to "principles".
"I meant “effects” in the sense of “influences.”"
You can change the "effects" to "influences" in my comment and it doesn't change a thing. That's the meaning I took and used.
"This is so false it gives the impression of desperation. I can barely find the motivation to answer it, it’s so baseless and weak."
Well I expected you would have trouble with it, but it's not baseless. To my fault, I probably should have mentioned "legitimate" debate. He will change the topic, avoid the question, or lie either explicity or by suggestion.
"To quote a movie is to quote fiction."
It's a simple description of a person. It was fitting. What was your point?
"You’re just throwing words without giving examples."
He vilifies those who disagree with him (this item is an example!). He fosters an atmosphere of "us vs. them" where liberals are supposed to be the enemy, out to destroy America's value and power, who are unpatriotic and hate America. Even limited listening to his show has exposed me to the modus operandi there, and further reading about the bile he spews has only reinforced that impression. I listened to it to get some of the other side, but I highly disapprove of his methods and his lies*.
"When you describe as “hateful” anything from Rush’s show, what you mean is “politically incorrect.” You are changing the meaning of the word hateful."
No, you are changing the meaning of the word! When I say "hateful" I mean it. This caller's words were not simply "politically incorrect". Just because that's the barely meaningful catch-all phrase you need to use to defect criticism, that doesn't give it any merit here.
"You’re the one who is apparently thinking about embarrassment."
What an odd reply. I posted the first response, why would I be thinking about embarrassment for me? That doesn't make any sense at all, because if I was embarrassed I wouldn't have made the post! Your attempted deflection of "polically incorrect" falls on its face, and so your comment that there is no hate on Rush's show on this particular thread is unbelievably stupid.
"While we can argue to a small extent whether this news is factual, we can’t state that this daily flux of “info” has any influence on his basic principles, which have been the same from the beginning."
Great admission at the beginning there, it is clearly questionable how much of his info is legitimate. Your suggestion that Rush is a man of his principles and liberals change their principles from circumstance to circumstance is simply unfounded.
"A common thread running particularly through the leftist response to life is the validation of “the ends justify the means.”"
I laughed out loud at this (our rationale in Iraq is the perfect example of "the ends justify the means", you know) and the utterly moronic and baseless comments that followed as well. You are a prisoner of false right-wing sterotypical beliefs.
willowtree - Tuesday October 4, 2005 09:36:59 PM EST
Was Rush being highly accurate when he said there was no such thing as an implied contract (any first year law student knows better). That there is more forest land now than at the time of the American revolution (please) That there are more Native Americans alive now than when Columbus discovered America( estimated at 15 to 20 million then about 200,000 now) or that Tufts University did a study comparing IQ with bra size using a benchmark of 34C and the larger the bra size the lower the IQ (do I really need to point out Tufts said they never made any such study?) Rush can only be considered as highly accurate by brainwashed dittoheads living on Planet Wingnut where reality has never been heard from.
"Nothing he has ever said can accurately be described as hateful."
Well, one example--after the Clintons first took office, on his TV show, he showed a picture of Socks the cat. He then put up a picture of Chelsea, who was like 12-13 or so at the time, and said that there was also a "white house DOG". If trashing a kid who never did anything to him just to get a cheap shot in on her parents is not hateful... Actually, if I had to sum up his success in one sentence, it would be "He appeals to those who are full of hatred by validating the reasons for that hatred." And I still wonder why he's not in jail; isn't that what he says should be the fate of junkies?
Tralfaz: You went back pretty far in Rush’s career to find something to call hateful. A stretch in time and in semantics.
--I wasn't aware of a limited time frame, I just picked a good example (what was wrong with the semantics?). I don't think one would have to look too hard to find a more recent example, these kind of mocking, sneering, personal attacks are his trademarks. --Ordinarily, my take would be So what? The world is full of obnoxious jerks who take 30 Oxycontin a day...but the thing that sticks in my craw is the double-standard. Rush & coulter & oreilly et al can spew out the most vile, hateful, and insulting statements that come to mind. But, if anyone complains about it, its always "Stop whining!" and "Get over it!" However, if someone plays in kind, they cry like the little spoiled brat babies that they are. For example, Whoopi Goldberg made a few jokes about "Bush" and "bush". She was reviled in every media outlet for what seemed like forever. But, soon afterwards, both Rush & Dennis Miller joked about Kerry & Edwards being a couple of 'homos' because they embraced after the convention, but there was nary a peep heard about it. Both were jokes, both were in questionable taste, but the responses were totally different. In other words, I can play by any set of rules you like, but I would like the opponent to have to play by the same rules; I hate having a boxing glove at a knife fight. Personally, I would prefer the nasty debate; I've been schooled by the best there is (we're in our 32nd yr of marriage), but you get flagged here. So, "pretty-boy", I would refer you to [link to thinkprogress.org] where you can claim comment # 117 for yourself.
Comparing feminists to Nazis, via the 'feminazi' insult, isn't hateful? Last time someone used a Nazi comparison in a public forum, he was forced to apologize.
Panzermensch: By calling them feminazis Rush is only illustrating the fact that they are rigid, militaristic demagogues whose motivations appear to be much more sinister than what they claim. Ask Tammy Bruce.
And Rush has told us many times that he refers not to all feminists but only to a handful of the most actively militant feminists as feminazis.
And Rush has told us many times that he refers not to all feminists but only to a handful of the most actively militant feminists as feminazis.
by prityboyfloid - Wednesday October 5, 2005 11:31:34 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And yet...have you ever heard him talk about the feminists with whom he agrees? I think not.
"Your extremely low threshold for criticism of Rush is therefore potentially a very good measure of the accuracy of his statements. That is, any statements he makes that you leave untouched are guaranteed to be unassailably accurate, because if any given statement is even remotely vulnerable you would be all over it."
Your entire argument is based on the faulty premise that the posts about Rush are somehow trivial, as if he doesn't lie. Because of this, it is D.O.A.. The idea that every single thing that he says that is not listed in an article must be unassailably true and valid is simply nonsensical. By this standard, you could analyze the MRC page, focusing on items which actually describe episodes of misinformation, and the myth of the "liberal media" would be dissolved. After all, if they don't mention it, it must not exist, right? It's not as if you can argue that they aren't "desperately poised to attack", can you?
My point is that for every trivial little item picked out of Rush’s show to criticize him, there is a multitude of commentary that liberal websites will not touch. Here are a few substantive topics from Rush’s show (there are far too many for me to post more at this hour):
Abledanger/911 commission/Gorelick-wall debacle; the fraudulent activities suspected of Hillary; the fraudulent activities suspected of William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana; same for Ronnie Earle, the Tom DeLay prosecutor, the list is endless and I’m tired.
Just remember, before you try to label these as conspiracy theory or whatever, each of these allegations is at least as credible and really much more so than any false allegation against Bush, Rove or DeLay.
For any average liberals out there, the organizers of this website don’t want you to know the truth about Rush. You are forbidden by them from visiting rushlimbaugh.com; you are not allowed to read for yourself.
You are forbidden by them from visiting rushlimbaugh.com; you are not allowed to read for yourself.
by prityboyfloid - Wednesday October 5, 2005 11:15:12 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's just silly...the only thing that might make people from here not visit the limbaugh site is the fact that he charges a fee to do so. I'm pretty sure MMFA had nothing to do with that.
Just want to revise my statement a little...it doesn't cost anything just to go to rushlimbaugh.com...but some of the content costs.
you got it wrong there, pritty boy, it's limbaugh that tells his listeners not to read the papers because he'll tell them all he needs to know. and when are you guys going to have the gumption to stick to the same names?
I'm a linguist by training and profession and I am curious what do you mean by awkward grammar? Is that grammar that is uncomfortable around people?
Seriously, the only substantive comment I have hear Rush make (and I try and listenly each day for a few minutes) was that the Cell-Phone holster was a modern day gun holster, and that it made men feel more manly. I think he was right about that. Other than that, I've never heard him say anything of import.
slothrop: That’s because you only listen for a few minutes.
Limbaugh's comments are so downright ludicrous they're not worth my time, Willowtree...or can I just call you Ann?
I prefer not to be called Ann.
Hmm. And here I would have sworn it was conservatism that is clearly in "rebellion against God", with Limbaugh as one of Beelzebub's chief "pimps" promoting same.
Limbaugh caller said LIBERALISM is expressed through the justification of abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, prostitution, racism, even race-centered thinking
The words "liberal" and "conservative" are used often in political discourse today; but what those words are supposed to mean exactly, is not always clear. The word "liberal", as used by those who would describe themselves as such, has seemed to me to mean "valuing individual freedom and expression, and progressive social policy; even social reform". But that definition stinks; it's not specific enough. Which freedoms, and what expressions? What social policies, and reform what specifically? It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion, on a serious topic, when the words are as vague as those: progressive, reform, freedom, and liberal. It's frustrating.
The word "liberal", as used by those who would describe themselves as "conservative", has seemed to me to mean "those people, and things, that we despise and hate". That's the least that can be gathered, from the context in which most "conservative" people use the word "liberal"; Coulter and Hannity, for example, and even the caller cited in this item, from the Rush show; him too.
Now the cited caller did a good thing to clear up the meaning of the word "liberal", and he did a bad thing too. The good thing was, he offered up the specifics of what it was he despised and hated; he was clear as to what he thought "liberalism" was, as quoted above in the first line of this post. But while those are the things he hates and despises, are they really the specifics of "liberalism"?
As for "race-centered thinking": well, from his comments, his thinking seemed "race-centered", but I'm sure he doesn't think himself "liberal"; as sure as I am that his "thinking" was "race-centered".
As for "racism": there's a well-written item on this website, which accurately quotes a "conservative" radio personality named Bennett; if "liberals" deal in "racism", then they certainly do not have a monopoly on that business.
As for "prostitution": where it's illegal, it's a crime complete with punishment; and where it's legal (NV), I'd bet neither "liberals" nor "conservatives" have a monopoly on that business. They just pay, and talk about it at their own risk, mostly in private.
As for "promiscuity": who knows why that would find it's way into political discourse; and once found there, who would care to talk about it, except those who can't get laid. And for them anyway, there's always (NV).
Now the bad thing (I thought) the cited caller did was make the word "liberalism" synonymous with the word "Democrat". I think this because I'm a Democrat, but I'm not any of the things he hates and despises: I'm not promiscuous, I'm not a prostitute, I'm not a racist, and my thinking isn't "race-centered" (wanna guess what race I am? I bet you didn't get it from me and my post).
I appreciated the cited caller's offering up the specifics of what he hates and despises; if he wants to call it "liberalism", then fine with me. Just don't call it a Democrat, because I'm one, proudly: a Democrat.
A Democrat, with specific opinions on specific issues in politics; and not all the political issues are of equal importance to me, as there are issues important to other Democrats, of which I have no (expressed) opinion; so it goes in American (Democratic) politics. And I don't see how my opinions, collectively, could be called "liberalism"; not by the cited caller anyway; not by his definition.
"Liberal" I am not, by any definition; Democrat I am, by choice and proudly so, as I have stated; and so I am the proof that the cited caller doesn't know what he's talking about (even though he knows what he hates and despises), because...
the word "liberalism" is not synonymous with the word Democrat.
"the word "liberalism" is not synonymous with the word Democrat."
You're right. I'm a proud LIBERAL, but I'm not a Democrat. The notion that Liberalism = evil is a sign of small minded (conservative) thinking.
"You're right. I'm a proud LIBERAL, but I'm not a Democrat. The notion that Liberalism = evil is a sign of small minded (conservative) thinking."
by fooled once
************************
Yuck are you one of those Greenies?
Seems to me liberals apply the same sort of notions when it comes to conservatives.
The notion that conservatism = evil is a sign of small minded (liberal) thinking.
"Yuck are you one of those Greenies?
Seems to me liberals apply the same sort of notions when it comes to conservatives.
The notion that conservatism = evil is a sign of small minded (liberal) thinking."
Not a 'Greenie' at all. Just a former liberal leading conservative who was fooled once by Bush, and started reading. I highly recommend it. You can really learn a lot. For example, conservatism isn't evil, but listening to evil conservatives is.
I don't think that Conservatives are evil, but I don know that when the Republicans rule the legislature you ger tax cuts for the rich during a time war and economic uncertainty and you get this -
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
I don't understand your priorities.
It's interesting to me that he brings up the specious idea that the bible calls liberals "fools." Somehow I doubt that judgement is reserved just for those who might be liberal. Here are a few things the bible DOES say about fools, tho': Prov 12:16 - A fool gives full vent to his anger, a wise man keeps himself in control. Prov 18:2 - A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinion. Prov 17:28 - Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, discerning if he holds his tongue. Also, Matthew 5:21-26 is the passage about how calling a brother a fool is a sure path to the fires of Hell, how anyone who does such a thing should be tried before court, etc. And back to Proverbs, 9:8-9 - Rebuke a mocker and he will hate you. Rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
Willowtree's unquestioning allegiance to Rush is a very disturbing example of the effectiveness of hate based propaganda. The "scholarship winner" could be described as self-loathing. Perhaps one could make an argument that those minorities (and they are very few) who believe in Rush and the extreme right wing are victims of the Stockholm Syndrome -when prisoners/kidnap victims identify with their captors (in this case the ideological right wing). Rush's lies are well documented; and as one of the posters pointed out, tars all Democrats with the term liberal (be afraid all ye rightous right wing republicans). Conversely, his brand of republicanism is loathesome to conservatives who are educated and non-ideological (much as they are now outnumbered by the more extreme right wing). And as I have said on many occasions, Rush is offensive while lying. How about the statement that to the "feminazi's" abortion is a sacrament. Don't know if I'm being paranoid, but I think there is a subtle connection to witchcraft which has a very long historical tradition with the male power elite who are threatened by women seeking the same power. In that vein, Rush is very venoumous in his comments about Hillary Clinton. And last but not least is the reference to the Abu Ghraib torturers as "just having a little fun." More than offensive, this is just perverse!!!
claudo - Wednesday October 5, 2005 07:13:52 AM E
This is why it is imperative to release the Abu Ghraib photos. So the dittobot borg crew, along with the rightwing propaganda parrot parade will no longer be able to even claim such nonsense about the attrocities at Abu Ghraib. Rape and murder is what happened there not a little fun. When someone pleads guilty to a crime they first must allocute, that is admit their guilt, the first step toward ending the sort of heinous actions that happened in Iraq is admitting they happened, then taking steps to hold all those responsible in ANY way accountable if we dont we can be certain this will happen again.
Well, let’s see. Release the photos, inspire the enemy to fight harder against American soldiers. Maybe (God forbid) more casualties on our side. Interesting how more casualties causes more erosion of public support for the war, which translates into Democrat victory. Interesting to note who wants the photos released.
So those who do not want the photos to be released are not political themselves? By the wy, so many Democrats have supported the Bush policy in Iraq that negative views of the war do not easily translate into opposition victory. The other party has to be able to present an alternative policy.
So the Iraqis will only find out about the torture when the photos are released, right. The tortureds' family members and friends are unaware. Is that what you are saying? You make a real logical stretch by saying the release of the photos will lead to more insurgent attacks. Those groups have plenty of existing reasons to attack the U.S. already in their minds. You need to understand the dynamics on the ground in Iraq before maing such speculative statments.
The caller, lets call him Eric, is not an unusual case. In fact, it is common practice for Blacks to sell themselves out for a brief moment of acceptance as a carbon copy to Whites. Back in the day they call them "Uncle Toms." Hell, I still call them uncle toms. The "sell out" is not specific to Blacks; other minorities are victim to the "want to be" syndrome. There is one odd thing that has always puzzled me and that is what do they go through when they look in the mirror and see, after all the "sell outs" and putting their own kind down, they are still just Black or minority. Yes, I guess Russ was laughing his butt off to see this Black man do something he has to be so indirect about that it has taken all the good old racist calling fun out of the moment.
Joseph
joseph_b26 - Wednesday October 5, 2005 01:17:36 PM EST
Yeah, its like the old saying, if you want to roast an Irishman you can always find another Irishman to turn the spit
Seeing this article, I wonder about this item. I just say this because the so-called "caller" obviously has never heard Tom Joyner or Tavis Smiley - These gentlemen in particular have many times had features/discussed empowerment/economic issues in the Black communtity and I would imagine the areas they covered would not get an argument from most thinking people. Personally I'm glad that there are Congresspersons like Rangel and I can't forget John Conyers either. They've had the guts to call out the administration when the rest of the Dems have shut up for fear of being swift-boated or whatever... I just think it's funny to hear such descriptions seeing that some (and I choose my words carefully) in the Republican party still recycle the familiar language of bigotry towards Black people. When you call them out on it, they throw out the "political correctness" cry..
There's a difference between bigoted and divisive discussion and airing of legitimate issues..
The propaganda of the oppressor coming from the mouth of the opressed is music to his ears. I'm sure a pat on the head and a doggie biscuit would have been enjoyed even more than a one-year subscription to limbaugh.com