Limbaugh discusses "the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany"
August 06, 2009 2:29 pm ET
From the August 6 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
And yet you call democrats nazi's...
Its not a complete misrepresentation of fact, such as calling an American President the "Leader of the Free World" or even claiming that any U.S. Pres has ever been 'elected by popular vote'.
Just because I may have taken you to task at some instance doesnt in any way mean I do or will disagree with everything you post, and certainly won't lead to me embellishing your every Comment with a disparaging quip out of spite. I go on a case-by-case, statement-by-statement basis, and nothing truly 'personal' about it. Politics is no place for the thin-skinned.
You will notice that I call it as I see it, and I'm as likely to lambaste a Republican as I am a Democrat, depending on the topic-at-hand. I do my homework and yes I generally do go for the deeper under-currents and the less well known connections between things. So, I am quite used to not having everything I may reference immediately recognized by the lowest common denominator. Don't infer that I am in any way incapable of fleshing something out when called upon to do so. (Reciprosity attached)
You continue on however you see fit.
No spite involved, I don't think you've ever "taken me to task" or even directed a comment at me. Most people here have a good sense of humor, and will use it towards other posters of all political stripes.
I did appreciate the satirical re-telling of your confusion as your comments being over the heads of others.That sort of wit will serve you well here.
As for my comments being over the heads of others, I'm genuinely not that presumptuous. There are always those few that just can't/won't grasp, but for the most part I assume that I am not saying anything thats beyond comprehension.
I know it's embarrassing, but it happens to everybody. You don't help your credibility by trying to blame your mistakes on others. Believe me, we could use some sensible conservatives at this site. Don't make a fool of yourself right off the bat.That's hard to recover from.
Best of luck trying to pigeon-hole me with labels like 'conservative' or 'liberal', as have long-since freed my mind & claimed my Right to form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis. An ideology may either aid or hinder a perspective, but its not a time machine, it doesn't actually change history. Facts are Facts.
Anyway, enough of this. If you disagree with something specific, or spot a factual error, identify it.
By the way - does anyone know if Joe Kennedy actually sympathized with the Nazis enough to work with Prescott Bush?
Listening to his list of eerie similarities, of course most are just complete azz-backwards BS, but the few that are remotely comparable are actually positive. (I don't think the Autobahn is inherently evil, in fact I know a lead-footed Jewish woman who loves it).
Another interesting thing in this clip is a number of times Boss Hogg uses one of his go-to hypnosis devices. The phrase "We all know..." followed by something that is only his confused opinion. Notice how many of the trolls who insist they never listen to Rush use this same low-level trick when posting here?
I enjoy pointing it out when they try it. As if they believe liberals are susceptible to the same bargain basement mind control stuff they fall for.
Boss Hogg is getting deparate for certain.
For the record, the interstate was started under Eisenhower, one of the two best things he did (appointing Earl Warren to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was the other) while in office. Ike was nominally a Republican in his time, and I really have to wonder what party he'd be today. My guess is that he wouldn't have been able to stand Limbaugh.
The Autobahn provided jobs,and was a very successful government project. Of course Rush would have wanted it to fail.
There was slave labor used during the war, but many of our rural roads were built by chain gangs, and I doubt many Real Americans refuse to drive on them for human rights reasons, and I very much doubt that is rushbo's problem with it.
Now I see what Limbaugh's reason was for bringing it up, but the comparison strikes me as so utterly lame that it should discredit him even among his deep-thinking, rational fans.
(I love a good oxymoron.)
Citizenbyright linked to a site about some consensus-building survey method with no examples of how it's used by liberals to back up his claim.
Wingnut business as usual here.
If you replaced the weird guilt-tickling, socialist=dog-whistle-blowing stuff with some substance, that could have been posted by a moonbat socialist lib.
15 minutes of liberal guilt = support for over-reaching and ultimately destructive/counter-productive 'feel-good' legislation and policy, relieving people from the Freedom and the Right to enjoy the consequences of their own ignorant actions and bad choices, holding responsible & rationalizing making group A pay group B for some past wrong dead group C did to dead group F, being empathically susceptible to political manipulation and subversion beyond logic and evidence, etc
1. Never use one metaphor to describe another. "Socialist dog-whistle" and "Bread and Circuses" are unrelated metaphors, and the implication that one is a version of the other suggests that you have no idea what you're talking about.
2. Never use a legal term perjoratively outside of it's legal application. And especially avoid using it as an adjective when it has nothing to do with the subject you're attempting to describe. That tends to suggest that you have no idea what you're talking about.
3. Metaphors which contain chronology must refer to subjects related to time. 15 minutes of anything as an analogy for any noun tends to suggest that you have no idea what you're talking about.
4. Stick with a lexicon with which you're familiar. Accidentally using words which do not exist in the language in which you're working, such as "empathically" in English, tend to suggest that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Other than that, hilarious beat down. I hope this one sticks around, I love the "intellectual" dittoheads. They're always the slowest at realizing they have the floppy shoes and red nose on.
I tried to find "empathically" within variations of "empathy" in the dictionaries, but didn't find it. Most often, I have heard - and used - "empathetically". But as you pointed out, it was used incorrectly, regardless.
I realize that introspection isn't a strong suit among our rigid conservative friends, but wouldn't you think that at least they'd take a cue from that fact that the other 20 occupants of their tiny car all had red rubber noses and floppy shoes?
Parens Patriea is not just a legal term, its also very much a socio-political concept. In fact I'd have to say it was socio-political before it formally entered the legal lexicon. It has operation today far beyond the confines of the Courtroom and the Legislature. It is apt.
'15-minutes-of...' is an instantly recognizeable play on the "15 minutes of fame" phrase that Warhol coined. It conveys the sentiment I wished to express very well. It is apt. I could conjure up something like 'six degrees of legislation' to describe the relationship between every political system ever devised, and [most everyone] would 'get it'.
'Empathically susceptible to...' meaning a politically exploitable weakness by way of one's natural empathy, was used properly in that context.
In general, I am not afraid to make creative (liberal) use of the alphabet to convey my opinion or identify an abstract, so long as I am not being nefarious or disengenuous about it. That is how the popular lexicon evolves, after all.
I do thank you for the critique though. I am aware that there is simply no way to please everyone.
Parens Patriea is not just a legal term, its also very much a socio-political concept. In fact I'd have to say it was socio-political before it formally entered the legal lexicon. It has operation today far beyond the confines of the Courtroom and the Legislature. It is apt.
'15-minutes-of...' is an instantly recognizeable play on the "15 minutes of fame" phrase that Warhol coined. It conveys the sentiment I wished to express very well. It is apt. I could conjure up something like 'six degrees of legislation' to describe the relationship between every political system ever devised, and [most everyone] would 'get it'.
'Empathically susceptible to...' meaning a politically exploitable weakness by way of one's natural empathy, was used properly in that context.
In general, I am not afraid to make creative (liberal) use of the alphabet to convey my opinion or identify an abstract, so long as I am not being nefarious or disengenuous about it. That is how the popular lexicon evolves, after all.
I do thank you for the critique though. I am aware that there is simply no way to please everyone.
The Delphi Method was created by the RAND CORPORATION think-tank and is used to build consensus (or rather the illusion of consensus) where there actually is none.
Once you are familiar you will find it, and variants of it used everywhere, especially in the political realm.
By breaking the mass down into smaller 'focus groups', and then feeding the "results" you favor from one group(s) to the rest, with the pre-meditated intention of influencing their opinions to your own benefit. Its done over and over again, while you stand there ostensibly neutral and wanting to discover what the group has to say, conveying the sense that they are somehow active in the decision-making process, citing the data of the other chosen groups, until they say/think exactly what you want them to say/think.
Its actually using them against one another and playing on trust, social pressure and the herd instinct, by making them 'feel' as if they are or should be going along with all their invisible peers. And yes, it quite effectively splinters and silences a minority opposition that could gain strength and swing the en masse opinion against your scheme.
These "town hall" meetings that have been going on,,, classic Delphi technique. The name of the meeting says one thing, an opportunity to speak & be heard, to BE part of the process and presumably change something. However, the agenda evinces another aim entirely. The Plan is already formed, it isnt going to change no matter what gets said in some town hall. Its not Policy making, but consensus building, which will be used to Delphi you, and then your Representatives.
En voila,, "the people have spoken" and they just so happen to magically 'want' exactly this legislation, in exactly its as-yet-unknown final form.
And no, its not by any means just the Left that does it, the Right uses it as well. If you pay attention, you might even spot its form being exercised in Public Schools.
Wouldn't a much better example of the Delphi Method be the artificial packing of these meetings with furious "private citizens" who are against reform, then showing these videos to other average Americans?
Again though, the concept of a 'town hall' gives the impression that the People are actually helping to make the Policy, that its somehow a 'democratic' process on an individual/community level, and that what they feel or have to say actually means something, now.
In other words, everything you wrote after "Delphi Method" is crapola. And you can take your spoon a shove it right back where the rest of your information comes from.
I realize he shifted the goal posts after I pointed that out, adding that the artificial consensus builders aren't the majority, or in power( factors that have nothing to do with anything)because they didn't start the meeting.
Also avoided is the fact that the "misguided idiots" (CBR admits they are) are the ones preventing any sort of give and take or democratic process,further hurting his argument that this is a ploy by the creators of the townhall to prevent any community input.
I think we have another wingnut who has spent way too much time being the smart guy among his dumb friends,and is way too impressed with himself. This little journey outside the bubble probably won't do any damage to those delusions.
But it was nice of him/her to spoon feed it to this crowd. Ha.
The "average americans" being shipped in by the wingnuts are a disruption. If the operation were going as planned, obviously, they would have no influence on the process. Their disruption is intentional on their own part, not on the part of the planners.
They are their own worst enemy, no argument from me on that.
Not avoided whatsoever. as pointed out here, there is no 'democratic process' going on at these meetings, they aren't designed to input anything into the legislation. They are there to make the citizenry feel as if they have had their voices heard, and to influence one another into supporting something they have not even had fully revealed to them yet.
Gathering intelligence along the way to pick what phrases and terms to use and which to avoid, when 'describing' this 'something' they are trying to get us to buy. That is mind-control as well.
In any case, there is a sure way to tell. When the final product is revealed, when we can examine all the nuts and bolts, we will be able to see just how much if anything novel that was voiced by the citizens in the town halls actually made it into the legislation in any meaningful, recognizeable way.
Look at the facts and you will see that its being used asymmetrically. Its an abuse of the Delphi Method, there are many variations and applications, but it is essentially the Delphi Method.
As noted, these so-called "town halls" aren't problem solving, they aren't being used to craft legislation. They are being used to build consensus for legislation that has & will be crafted elsewhere, by others. Moreover, its an attempt to build consensus in support of legislation that none of the 'consensus' in these town halls have even seen the final form of yet. Aside from that, even if you argue that the participants are being 'listened to' and may have some small effect on the product, what isn't being recognized are the board-rooms, think-tanks, political strategy sessions and lobby lunches that are and will be given greater weight. There is no 'consensus building' between all the interests involved going on at these town halls. Everyone isn't sitting around the same table with everything on the table, we are not 'figuring this thing out together' by any stretch of the imagination.
There again, it's a manipulation of people's perception, micro- or macro-, that IS mind-control.
"The People have now given us the mandate to do 'something', so, 'something' is what they will get" is not just not good enough, no matter what your political bent is.
Go back to simple contract law. If you don't know or don't understand exactly what it is you are agreeing to, if anything has been ommitted or occluded, if the terms are too vague, if you are being coerced in any way, the contract is void.
The manufactured 'consensus' is void, ab initio.
A little editing might help, if he could just trim it down a little, and get to a point occasionally, he could get himself into the ProudCon/Barney/Pointy league of clownishness.
But then, gee whiz the genius involved, once you added the false dichotomies, ad hominems and lobbed a couple of straws at the grammer, you really pulled the whole digression together into a real zinger of a pseudo-syllogism. I am humbled and shamed before all.
Not.
Neon, (are you an actual fake desert?) you obviously understood reasonably well what I meant by the terms I used. I can respect someone who can stand up and say they disagree and flesh out why and how, give substantive opposing view. Its harder for me to respect someone who obviously just didnt like what I had to say, simply attacks the vernacular as being some sort of ipso facto 'proof' against the premise.
Have you seen the final manifestation of this 'health care reform'? (please share, if so) You have looked it all over and understand every nuance, how it will affect all the things it touches? No? Then how do you know if you support it or not? How can there be any consensus in favor of "it"?
Seems to me more like a leap of faith at this point, instead of an informed, rational decision. I thought most viewed the wingnuts as the ones susceptible to that sort of thing.
BTW, I find it so amusing when, at first, my 'liberal' acquaintances think must I listen to Rush and his fellow wind-bags, but my 'conservative' acquaintances think I listen to Michael Moore and his fellow wind-bags. Truth is, I can't abide either. You guys calling me a 'dittohead' and a 'wingnut' thats funny. May as well call me the ocean, or the sky or anything else that I am not. It would lend just as much merit to your counter-points.
Rest assured, Rush. No such party exists.