Limbaugh pushes falsehoods to claim climate change is a "hoax" that is "about advancing socialism, Marxism"
February 17, 2010 1:40 pm ET
From the February 17 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 of course also takes for granted that ANYTHING that could serve a collective is not allowed on his property(things like town sewer, water, power, public services - have a fire? sorry, the FD is paid by the town which collects taxes from the collective to pay them, need an ambulance? Sorry, you'll have to call a private ambulance company - most take credit cards, have trash? better learn how to compost, the town dump is paid for with taxes, no more posting on the internet for you - after all, the internet was developed by DARPA, which is paid for with our taxes, another one of them collective things, etc).
I can soberly assess the philosophy behind conservatism, can you do the same for liberalism without dragging out tired canard such as cries of Marxism, state control etc?
Let's assume this mystical happy collectivist world is a reality for a moment. Do you REALLY think <insert politican here who has control of your money> isn't going to abuse that power?
You posted on another thread the completely false statement that the United States was founded on "capitalism." That's simply not fact. You are repeating a revisionist talking point.
Liberalism is a philosophy that does not trust people. It believes people can not care for themselves. It stresses the collective at the expense of individual rights. Today's liberals have bastardized the term. To me a Liberal is John Locke (my favorite), Jefferson, Voltaire, Montesquieu, etc. Today's liberals have little in common with these pioneers of individual rights.
I would classify modern liberals as proximately akin to the philosopher-king dynamic espoused in Plato's Republic. Liberals believe people need help from government - I fundamentally disagree with this assertion, ergo I am a conservative/libertarian.
Conservatives borrow far more from an Aristotlian dynamic. I know you don't like me to bring Marxism into this, but Marx and Engels were huge admirers of Plato, but despised Aristotle.
The myth perpetuated by conservatives that liberals want a nanny state is blatantly incorrect. We want a mixed economy, both public and private, where the government steps in to make sure that the worst side-effects of capitalism don't destroy those least prepared to overcome them. Conservatives are still trying to do battle with the hippies of the 60's. They don't exist. Liberals today are not wide-eyed idealists who imagine some sort of socialist utopia. We are the real pragmatists. If private enterprise did a good job of providing affordable health care for all, people like me would not be proposing a public solution to the problem. The fact is as the health care industry profits soar, the number of people it covers adequately continues to decline. Private industry hasn't solved the problem, unless you define the problem as how can health insurance companies make the most profit possible.
Libertarians think that everyone should be left alone to succeed or fail based on their own abilities. They largely adopt this stance because they see themselves on the positive side of that equation. The problem is that there are people out there that don't have the ability to make a decent living in the current environment no matter how hard they work. They simply don't have the faculties that bring success today. Does that mean they are bad people? Is a fireman a bad person because he works with his hands and not with his mind? Does a teacher not deserve to live above poverty if she chooses a profession that is extremely necessary but will never make her rich? The game is rigged for the rich and powerful. People shouldn't be denigrated simply because they want to help people instead of pursuing the biggest paycheck possible. Society should work for all people, not just a privileged few.
Objectivism is really nothing more than a dressed up cult-of-personality like Scientology. I assume that you are an atheist, too.
'Course, he also claims to have his doctorate in economics, too.
Her atheism is what holds me back from fully embracing the term Objectivist. I am more confortable with the term Libertarian because it permits for the free exercise of religion.
FAIL!
That last one just broke his heart, you cruel bastard.
That is a completely false statement. It must be the only way you can rationalize your views.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that government has a role to play to right some grievous wrongs that inevitably appear in a capitalist society. One of those wrongs is the fact that industrial pollution becomes a hidden cost that is not born by producers of pollution but instead is born by all of us collectively. If there is no regulation, then the widget manufacturer will not correctly price his product to include the real costs, both direct and indirect. He effectively gets a free ride at the expense of all of us. The only way a pure capitalist system would correct this, is if consumers had the information about the real impact and cost of the products they purchase. Then, they can make an informed decision as to whether to purchase that product. Unfortunately, information flow doesn't work that way. Manufacturers have a huge incentive to obscure information from potential consumers that could impact the buying decision negatively. This is why pure capitalism never works. It never works because perfect information never exists.
Sorry but I don't want my hard earned cash to go to some slacker, but I'll gladly donate out of my free will to charities with the money that the government hasn't stolen from me.
In a collectivist society, what is the incentive to do anything other then sit on your lazy rear end since you'll be taken care of no matter what? How is that fair?
Conclusion: Cons are goofy.
The less money is taxed, the less goes underground and the more goes towards charity.
The government steals nothing from you. Taxes are constitutional.
Here's a deal for you libs: Every dime I have paid into FICA is a gift. It is yours. I will make no claim on Social Security in the future. In exchange for this donation, you will no longer require me to make future contributions to FICA.
I have no problem with Churches and other organizations assisting those in needs, but I do not believe anyone should be compelled by law to pay for the expenses of another.
The 10th Amendment specifically state that all powers not explicitly granted to teh Feds in Article 1 Section 8 are reserved for the states. Can anyone tell me where in teh Constitution the Feds are authorized to pay for healthcare or education? I didn't think so, ergo federal spending on healthcare or education is blatantly unconstitutional.
I fully agree with you that the problem is that consumers do not have complete information. However, an engaged consumer can obtain information. Pure free market capitalism would work provided there were caveats prohibiting use of force and mandating 100% free disclosure.
Just because most people are too lazy to become informed, I should not have to pay the price of sacrificing any of my individual economic liberty on account of them. Throughout history we have generally had a mixed economy, but if BHO continues on his current course if (God forbid he is re-elected), we will be sliding toward a centrall planned command economy in the not too distant future.
Jeez, you people are really sick puppies!! Try listening to Frank Sinatra in the car . .
Priceless, you can't make this stuff up.
So what would a dittohead believe if they disagreed with everything Limbaugh says?
It means to copy or to repeat.
Quick, name three things El Fathead knows nothing about.
(Hint: "hoax" isn't one of them.)
~
"Global warming" is nothing but a Marxist redistributionist scam. The evidence is irrelevent when liberals have an agenda.
I don't think any of you folks actually really believe that the earth is warming - you did at one point, you just don't want to admit that you got taken in by a hoax.
Heat
Collateral
Public Enemies
The Insider
It all makes sense to me now!
Do you have facts to support this assertion?
Facts? FACTS?!!!1!! Of course not, as stated:
This is not science, this is politics.
Healthcare reform is another way to grow government and gain control over individuals.
You are no conservative, just a hate talk radio/Fox groupie.
HOW is this a redistribution of wealth OR a tool to impliment government control. You make these crazy statements that you have heard on Fox but you NEVER back them up with anything.
Senator Obama
17-January 2008
"We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. "
"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. "
"Government must have a heart as well as a head. "
"We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations."
"Further reductions in taxes with particular consideration for low and middle income families."
"We favor a comprehensive study of the effect upon wildlife of the drainage of our wetlands.
We recognize the need for maintaining isolated wilderness areas "
"A continuously vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws
Legislation to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have a significant or potential monopolistic connotations;
Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement. "
"Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. "
Let the revolution begin!
[Eisenhower is the first president I vaguely remember. I was a VERY small child.]
Anyone who admits to being a fan of Bobby "The Exorcist" Jindal has some serious issues with reality.
There are NO scientists "backing off" the AGW hypothesis.
This is entiremly a RW-media driven controversy.
It YOU PEOPLE that are getting "taken in by a hoax." And the rest of us will have to eventually pay the price.
When we do, I hope it IS redistibutive: The first people to pay for the damage should be the ones that have been denying it all these years.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luddite, pseudo-scienctific, magical-thinking FOOL.
And another thing has neone else noticed that no matter what the weather does its blamed on global warming?
Lots of snow?
global warming
no snow?
global warming
hurricanes?
global warming
no hurricanes?
global warming
The alarmists have hedged their bets so that no matter what happens they can blame it on global warming.
That statement doesn't even make sense! How could climate science redistribute wealth? And how is it a Marxist idea? Please educate me. Fox News can't do it. Can you? Make some sense out of your argument for me.
If "global warming" is real, why is it necessary for scientists to concoct facts? Environmentalists are watermelons - green on the outside, but red on the inside.
"Environmentalism" is the new home for the global Communist movement. It is nothing but a branch of Marxism. Marx said that movements need useful idiots. Tree huggers are the useful idiots of the enviro-commies. I feel sorry for people who actually believe in this hoax.
If you are a Bobby Jindal fan, you are, most likely a Christian. As a Christian, you are to be a good steward of God's creation. By driving your Hummer, you are not being a good steward. How do you reconcile your attitude with the Bible? Are you one of those ridiculous "dominionists"? You know that dominionism is not Biblical, right?
What is science to do? Wait for the waters to rise and entire societies disrupted? We could just wait and let it happen and then we can say "I told you so!". However, we'd rather start fixing the problem, even it if leads to morons perpetually doubting its existence.
I hear a lot of talk of the "Y2K Hoax". People say that all the worry about the Y2K bug was alarmist because nothing major happened at the turn of the century. The reality is that billions was spent on reprogramming the infrastructure to accommodate the new millennium. That's why nothing happened. Meanwhile, idiots who are now enjoying the fruits of all that labor get to sit around and call it a hoax. Similarly, if we do manage to arrest global warming, crazies such as Jindal here will perpetually wail that it was all a hoax. Unfortunately, we'll have to let it happen to prove our point. I'd rather fix it and put up with this inanity then be proven right after the fact.
basically Jindal here and anyone who thinks theres no worry with "drill baby drill" and no global warming are modern day neanderthols (bad spelling?)
I believe neanderthols died out around an Ice Age however amount of years ago, as they were unable to ADAPT to a changing world, for example, our ancestors would move south, or for warmer areas, while neanderthols would stay in the same location, where food and other resources got scarce in winter.
Also, another question, isn't republican party and conservatives about responsibility? denying global warming is sadly denying an inconveniant fact, like smoking can kill, (which I may point out I'm currently trying to quit, as I understand and accpet the fact that its not helping my health and while young I'd rather be healthy, although its inconveniant as I like to smoke a cigarette, anyway).
Oya, and a great arguement to the existence of God an Irish Comedian said the other day, (and for the record I do believe in a God). Anyway, three things.
A, we're made in the image of God?, have you seen yourself in the mirror? Gods created sunsets, beatiful tropical locations, raindows and the arora borialis to name a few, so what type of f***in off day was he having when he created us?
B. If God created us in his image, why do people bite the inside of their mouths? How stupid did he make us to do that? Does any animal do that in nature, only us.
And C. After creating us, why on earth would God create the Appendix? an organ designed to do nothing else but try to kill us at any moment in time.
Point B is my favourite reason to be honest ha ha.
B: See answer A.
C: See answer A.
unknown1's answer: Our Soul. You're thinking is too superficial. Reason is not limited to logic.
Wow.
By the way, reason and logic are the same thing.
Oh yeah...and there is no god.
That's some god you got.
Palin is a dominionist and she, like, old Bobby here, are end timers. End timers [another non-Biblical belief] believe that the end times are past due and that it's their DUTY to bring it about sooner. They are crazy, they are dangerous and they are not Christians.
That's right, BJ fan... DRILL BABY DRILL!
Give us some facts. Give us some science. Show us this connection between environmentalism and communism.
This is the ultimate end of the commies and enviro-wackos. They want government control of everyting. FOrtunately, most people are not buying this ridiculous canard that my driving my Hummer H2 is warming the planet.
Fortunately MOST people do believe in global warming.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5968412.shtml
47 percent in rasmussen poll say global warming not man made, because they're starting to come out of the box that the eco-fascists have put them in.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/climate-change-poll-/2010/02/16/id/350010
And that number is only gonna keep going up as more climate gate information comes out =).
You feel that unless the market is completely unfettered, it's socialism or communism. The closest we've ever come to a free market was at a time when children worked twelve hours shifts in factories, seven days a week.
Whenever someone brings up fascism, socialism or communism in a political discussion, the one who brings it up is admitting their side has no response or any practical idea how to govern.
You can't concoct facts, but what do you think climatolgists have concocted? Wingnuts are baloons- pretty on the outside, but full of hot air.
"tell them to get off their lazy butts and explore it"
Amen! Governor Palin and I agree with you. Palin 2012!!!!
What a retard.
PHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Okay, seriously, guy, joke's over.
Ever tell us your IQ?
Oh no, the '80s are attacking!
And so are the '50s, apparently.
Yeah, success-hating liberal communists like T. Boone Pickens. Smooth move, troll.
And what do you think of the rednecks with teabags on their hats that Dick Armey is deploying?
As in so many other cases, your username is the perfect punchline.
Oh, I think I have a new best friend.
Most would say "I'm an economist".
Stop mucking up my planet for a few extra shekels, you ignorant selfish tool!
How is it a branch of Marxism? And wow tree huggers? What is this, the 80's? And finally, it was Lenin, V.I LENIN, who said useful-idiots not Marx!
Environmentalism was part of the RNC's 1956 party platform.
If there was a hell, I'd hope that Rushes place in it would be a room where this kid could kick him in the nuts over and over again for eternity. Unfortunately, hell doesn't exist. There is no eternal justice for sickos like Rush.
People who instinctively come to the defense of the insurance industry have never been on the receiving end of one of their heartless decisions.
Well how can I compete with such a well thought out researched and fact laden post I give up?
So tell, us, how much is the life of your child worth? $1 million? $2 million? $5 million?
I have a young friend with leukemia who recently had this same situation. The doctor prescribed medications which the insurance company determined was "experimental" and didn't approve them . . . it wasn't the "experimental" thing that bothered the insurance company, it was the COST. Nice try defending the indefensible.
COMMITTEE REPORT: WHITE HOUSE ENGAGED IN SYSTEMATIC EFFORT TO MANIPULATE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE
The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.
For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed.
This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.
In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when ¦ average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science ¦ [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3373%3Acommittee-report-white-house-engaged-in-systematic-effort-to-manipulate-climate-change-science-&catid=44%3Alegislation&Itemid=1
Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on earth, but because it has a scary name it's used to make people get worked up over nothing.
Plants breath carbon dioxide. And humans exhale carbon dioxide.
SO once you've taken the position Co2 is a pollutant you have taken what is an inherently anti- human position. Which makes since because this is going to be used to bring in global one child policies put sterylants in the water and vaccines, and forced abortions which John P Holdren advocated in his book eco-science!!!