Limbaugh says Obama, Democrats are "targeting their own country," "purposefully destroying this country"
October 27, 2009 1:02 pm ET
From the October 27 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' 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.
This man is dangerous. His daily hate speech borders on sedition.
Bring back the fairness doctrine.
Rush would melt if confronted with an opposing point of view with equal time.
As for Soros . . . give it up! He's not an evildoer. He's just a very wealthy man who committed the cardinal sin of opposing GWB in the 2004 election. As the person who bailed GW out of his last oil company disaster, Soros simply understood that GW was a major screw-up who had NO business holding ANY public office.
There are major reasons why sometimes liberal radio can't compete with conservative radio, and it's got nothing to do with content, but it does have a lot to do with major media corporations (who are conservative) taking over markets, and forcing out liberal shows because they don't agree with their ideology, it has nothing to do with ratings. And actually, in some markets, people are "forced" in a way, to listen to conservative radio, because there is nothing else on, or available.
When we're talking about radio, free speech is not an issue as to who is, or isn't on the radio. The government already says what can, and what can't be heard on the radio, and seen on the TV. The FCC has plenty of rules limiting what can and cannot be seen and heard. Broadcasters in TV and radio sign a licensing agreement with the government allowing them to use bandwidth that we, the people, own and regulate. It has nothing to do with free speech, every broadcaster agrees to this.
There are frequencies open, yes, but go back to media conglomeration, and how that has allowed only a few companies to dominate the marketplace of radio and TV, and again, those companies are conservative.
And I hope they succeed in destroying your delusions.
Count the number of people actually buying into to this stupidity and compare it to the total number of American voters and it makes you wonder why this idiot gets so much attention. The things Limbaugh says nowadays are worthy of a high schooler...which is exactly the highest level of Limbaugh's academic achievement.
Divisiveness? What did the left do for eight years with W? If you disagree with policy and the person, what should you do? What is this White House doing? What do they call people who are protesting this President and this congress?
I am a phony conservative? I am actually more libertarian than conservative. It is sad that people who think like many of the people in here have hijacked the word liberal. It used to stand for liberty. Not anymore.
I told you that you wouldn't listen. Keep on believing you are a "libertarian." LOL!
Ignorance can apply to a certain issue. You don't think you could be ignorant of what and how I believe? Your arrogance is glaring and your pride is getting in the way of honest thought.
Tell me what makes me not a libertarian. Tell me the issues we have discussed that leads you to believe I cannot be a libertarian.
Obama loves this country more in his pinkie finger than in you're entire Fat Head.
Oh, and your support of Rush, et buds, does not represent a conservative mindset, just an uninformed groupie mindset.
I actually agreed with some of your above statements that one should not jump to judge another's love of country, but then you make statements like: "This government is trying to destroy the country" and the paranoid Beckian "It's far-left progressives vs. the rest of us."
So you can tell that the US government and progressives are involved in a nefarious plot to destroy the United States? I am "far-left" and progressive by many people's standard, and will match my love for this country against yours any day of the week.
As to your other point, I actually agree with you that we will at some point have to either get our spending under control and/or raise taxes. Both "sides" have been less than honest about these choices for a long time. But after eight years of hearing the political right say that we can have endless war, the world's most expensive military* and tax cuts in a time of war, I am wholly unimpressed by their newfound fiscal discipline. As Dick Cheney famously opined: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
*At 21% of GDP we spend more on our military than practically the rest of the world combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_by_country_map2.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#Chart_by_country_or_organization
The only president to preside over a balanced budget in the last 30 years was Bill Clinton, a supposed "tax and spend liberal." Conservatives always become deficit hawks when the president gets a (D) after his name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_annual_federal_deficits_over_receipts_1901_to_2006.svg
I don't think that most progressives view it that way. I think they se it as helping others. The problem is that some social justice ideas are great. Some are horrendous. Massive wealth redistribution has never been good for any country. I don't think that we as a society should take our moral superiority and tell someone how much is too much. I don't think that was the idea our founders were beholden to when they started this country. They wanted the government to allow each man to be free and create his own life. For us each to be self-sustaining and promote individual self-interest.
With that freedom came the responsibility for us as a society to pick each other up. Not with force from the government, but with the care for fellow man. I think the idea of helping as individuals has become lost in the idea of the government dictating who to help and who to hurt. Is that what you think made our society the most progressed and weatlthiest in the history of man?
Your opinion is duly noted, but that was not the opinion of the right's in general (or Limbaugh's specifically), who laughably asserted that Clinton was on the far left.
"The problem is that some social justice ideas are great. Some are horrendous. Massive wealth redistribution has never been good for any country."
But unfortunately, that is exactly what we have had for the last 30 or more years as the richest 1% have sucked up more and more of the nation's wealth. Redistribution of wealth is a fact of life, and it has mainly gone in one direction.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/12/the_skinny/main3360511.shtml
But try to reverse that trend even a little and hear the screeching charges of "communism, socialism, restitution and redistribution" from rich goons like Limbaugh. To Hell with 'em.
"I don't think that we as a society should take our moral superiority and tell someone how much is too much. I don't think that was the idea our founders were beholden to when they started this country. They wanted the government to allow each man to be free and create his own life. For us each to be self-sustaining and promote individual self-interest."
This country was founded on a plethora of ideas and ideals, including the notion that women were at best second class citizens and that people of color were less than human. Our "moral superiority" cut against these founding conditions in time, so absolute fidelity to what the founders envisioned is not always a good thing.
I have no problem with innovators and performers in business being well compensated, but yes, if a CEO drives a company into the ground, asks for tax-payer money and then pays himself a fat bonus for a job poorly done, then I have no problem with the responsible government agencies protecting our investment.
"With that freedom came the responsibility for us as a society to pick each other up. Not with force from the government, but with the care for fellow man."
I'm all in favor of self-help and of institutions other than the government (churches, charities, etc.) giving aid, but they are not in a position to meet every need.
"Is that what you think made our society the most progressed and weatlthiest in the history of man?"
Both of those statements are debatable. "Progressed" in what fashion? Technologically? Standard of living? Educationally? In these and other categories, the US has slid considerably from its once preeminent position over the decades, and to hear many people tell it, we are now living in a fascist/communist police state.
And in so far as America has been very successful, "individual self-interest" is only one factor. To it one can add: Foresight (including in our brilliant, though flawed, founding documents), industriousness, ruthlessness, geographical considerations (oceanic borders), historical factors (escaped the destruction of two world wars), ingenuity, genocide, free enterprise, democracy, a vibrant and energetic culture that is unafraid to experiment, progressive and liberal ideas, the ability to reinvent itself and, yes, government.