Limbaugh Takes a Shot at Atheists/Agnostics

[Red Siegfried]

Sorry, but Limbaugh is a waste of flesh.

Yeah, I kind of feel the same way about liberals.

That's coming from a conservative atheist, thank you.

Rush is right about many things. The existence of God is not one of them.

Methinks he should stick to discussing politics, which he is knowledgable about and often right about, IMO, and stay away from religion, the discussion of which he doesn't have a leg to stand on, as evidenced by the fact that his evidence for God is pretty much at a 5yr old's level of thinking.

 

[Kochanski]

It really is a shame that the cold war ended. Now all the things that these blowhards would attribute to the Godless Commies get attributed to humanists and atheists

They ALWAYS need a scapegoat, because then they don't have to THINK about the problem any more.

 

[Red Siegfried]

It really is a shame that the cold war ended. Now all the things that these blowhards would attribute to the Godless Commies get attributed to humanists and atheists

They ALWAYS need a scapegoat, because then they don't have to THINK about the problem any more.

That holds true for people on both sides of the political spectrum. Think about it. Limbaugh is nothing special in that regard. If you need any evidence simply reference the "Blame Bush" crowd and their cohorts, the "Blame Big Business" and "Blame The Rich" and the "Blame White Males" groups.

What I'm saying is that too often what masquerades as political "debate" is merely simple minded "us vs. them" when political debate should be something more like, oh, I don't know ... trying to establish what the truth is and how we can use that knowledge to fix the problems of government.

Yeah, I know ... I said liberals were a waste of flesh. I was just trying to get someone's goat and point out that the other side of the debate sometimes feels the same way, which doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

[Complexity]

He started as an opportunistic con artist.

He's been playing to idiots for so long that he has become one of them.

 

[Rob Lister]

I like rush sometimes. If I'm driving and he's on, I generally listen. He seems right more than half the time.

 

[Scottie99]

I like rush sometimes. If I'm driving and he's on, I generally listen. He seems right more than half the time.

Seems right more than half the time?


And do you call yourself a critical thinker. Rush has more mis-statements and half truths than about any other talker out there.

 

[Rob Lister]

Seems right more than half the time?


And do you call yourself a critical thinker. Rush has more mis-statements and half truths than about any other talker out there.

NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN!!!

But yes, I generally consider myself a critical thinker, though I don't recall ever having explicitly stated such in the past.

P.S.: your response concerning his misstatements indicates that you may not be the critical thinker you think you are.

 

[Scottie99]

Early in this post is a bit of evidence of him coming across half informed and using generalities.

I consider myself an independent politically and if I hear points being made from either side of the aisle I try to do more research and find the facts behind those points.

More times than not him and Bill O'Reilly are not fully informed of the facts (or choosing to pick the facts that suit them which is the more likely case). Your statement of him seeming to be right bothered me because it hit a nerve with me politically.

I am not saying this is the case with yourself but I tend to be very fearful of those that listen to opinion and take it as fact....

 

[Ladewig]

October 2003!!

The guy was caught using drugs 2 1/2 years ago and he still hasn't been charged! WTF?

 

[Rob Lister]

And yet almost all I listen to is opinion (of facts) and not facts. It's the nature of the beast. Rush is an entertainer (and admits it). His sthick (sp?) is appealing to the moderate to far right republicans (I think he well understands the difference between conservative and republican but does his best to dismiss it).

I also listen to far-left radio personalities when I can find a station that carries them. I find them right (in my opinon) far less often than rush. I find them misinformed far more often than rush (spinning the facts really). I find them less than entertaining far more so than rush. Perhaps that's why it is so very difficult to find same said station. NPR seems to be the last solid holdout for them, in this area at least.

There are some on the right that I can't listen too; Hannity and Dr. Larua would be two examples.

 

[Rob Lister]

October 2003!!

The guy was caught using drugs 2 1/2 years ago and he still hasn't been charged! WTF?

IMS, he was charged but there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The state attempted to prove that he was Doctor Shopping but Rush's lawyers were successful in squashing that evidence...or attempt to get evidence. Doctor/Patient relationship precedent and what not.

 

[Scottie99]

That is exactly our difference.

I love facts; hate opinion.

It think it is especially important in politics to be a critical thinker and filter out all the BS opinion.

I find on the right Hannity to have a better representation of facts than Rush or O'Reilly.

Left opinions are hard to hear on the radio; true. Usually most left leaning opinions come from op-ed pages of the Post and Times and depending on the writer and subject are hit or miss...

This atheist thing is just another case of rush blowing smoke out of his ass which is what he seems to have mastered...

 

[Red Siegfried]

He started as an opportunistic con artist.

He's been playing to idiots for so long that he has become one of them.

Wow, that's amazing. Someone who doesn't like Rush who isn't convinced that he was an idiot from the moment of conception. You're not a dittohead, are you?

At any rate, I don't think he's a con artist because he believes, dare I say KNOWS he's right. He's not trying to fool anyone. He's just preaching the "truth" as he perceives it. And I agree with him more often than not. But when I don't agree with him I generally want to reach through the radio and strangle him. It's particularly frustrating to hear someone who you think is normally fairly intelligent spew out something that's obviously wrong. Makes me want to smack him one. That's why he's the highest paid and most listened to radio host in history (yes, his numbers even beat Howard Stern) because like him or not, he's entertaining and elicits strong responses from the audience, which generates publicity, which generates revenue for radio stations.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for calling about 50% of America idiots, including myself. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder liberals lost the last two presidential elections. Americans generally don't take kindly to people who look down their nose at them.

 

[Red Siegfried]

That is exactly our difference.

I love facts; hate opinion.

It think it is especially important in politics to be a critical thinker and filter out all the BS opinion.

I find on the right Hannity to have a better representation of facts than Rush or O'Reilly.

Left opinions are hard to hear on the radio; true. Usually most left leaning opinions come from op-ed pages of the Post and Times and depending on the writer and subject are hit or miss...

This atheist thing is just another case of rush blowing smoke out of his ass which is what he seems to have mastered...

You know, that's interesting. I used to listen to Hannity regularly but whether I agreed with him or not I just couldn't stand listening to him for very long because I always thought he was kind of a smarmy jerk and very rude to anyone who he thought disagreed with him, even when they DID agree with him ... he'd go off half cocked and start insulting the caller, then find out the caller was there to say they agreed with Sean! That always irritated me.

Just my opinion. I couldn't get past his style long enough to really decide whether I agreed with his assertions more often than not.

 

[Red Siegfried]

IMS, he was charged but there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The state attempted to prove that he was Doctor Shopping but Rush's lawyers were successful in squashing that evidence...or attempt to get evidence. Doctor/Patient relationship precedent and what not.

While I felt bad that Rush got addicted to the meds, I also resented the way it seemed he could buy his way out of those doctor shopping charges when he was clearly guilty in my judgement. Then again, almost NO ONE ever gets convicted for doctor shopping in Florida. It was partly Rush's fault for doing something he knew was illegal and partly the fault of prosecutors who wanted to nail him because he was ... Rush Limbaugh.

All things considered, if I were the judge he'd be guilty, but get a light penalty. As a libertarian kind of guy I think we should be allowed to put whatever we want into our body but if I were the judge I think I would have had to admit the case was pretty open and shut against him.

 

[Rob Lister]

Regarding Hannity

Just my opinion. I couldn't get past his style long enough to really decide whether I agreed with his assertions more often than not.

That's pretty much how I felt. He's like this guy you just want to smack upside the head simply for opening his mouth. I don't understand his popularity...but there it is. Oddly, I don't mind [at all] listening to his counterpart on Fox, Combs. Combs is a goofball but not an offensive one. He too has (had?) a daily show but it never got picked up in this area. He wasn't 'shrill' enough for our liberals. Hannity is clearly 'shrill' enough for our conservatives.

 

[Angus McPresley]

What I'm saying is that too often what masquerades as political "debate" is merely simple minded "us vs. them" when political debate should be something more like, oh, I don't know ... trying to establish what the truth is and how we can use that knowledge to fix the problems of government.

From a liberal atheist, let me just say, "Amen".

We all evolved with an "us vs. them" tribal instinct. Once we've joined our tribe, there is an enormous tendency to

1. try to collect and pass along bits of evidence that make the other side look bad
2. ignore or downplay positive accomplishments by the other side
3. be an apologist for the wrongdoings of people on our own side
4. adopt 90-95% of the common viewpoints of our side as our own

And if you read this list and afterwards think, "Yeah, the other side does that sort of thing all the time..." then you're probably part of the problem.

IMHO, it is the single biggest problem facing the USA these days. The problem isn't liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, but tribal thinkers on both sides.

 

[Rob Lister]

Great post.

 

[patnray]

Regardless of how you feel about his politics, Rush is a con man and a hypocrite. While he can pick apart the logical fallicies in arguments for positions he does not agree with, he will use those same logical fallicies to advance his own arguments. One does not have to listen to him for long to find examples.

Once I heard him arguing in defense of a student who had been suspended for being drunk and shouting epithets about blacks, gays, and feminists outside some dorms at 2 AM. The university said he was suspended for being drunk and disorderly. Rush felt that it was because of the things he said (and I agree). To "prove" his point Rush said (paraphrasing), "Consider a hypothetical case where he had been shouting epithets about white males. He wouldn't have been suspended, which proves my point." That this doesn't prove his case is not my point. The next day a gentleman called in to argue some point with Rush. When the caller said "Consider the hypothetical case where..." Rush cut him off and said (not paraphrasing), "We don't deal with hypotheticals on this program."

When Congress was debating whether to impeach Clinton there were many opinion polls that showed that the public did not support impeachment. Rush stated that these polls were irrelevant, that this was a legal case and all that all that mattered was the law and whether Clinton was in fact guilty. But a few weeks later, when the Microsoft antitrust case was in the news, Rush, who sided with Microsoft, touted opinion polls that showed that the public supported Microsoft. Apparently the law wasn't as important in that case...

 

[valis]

Regardless of how you feel about his politics, Rush is a con man and a hypocrite. While he can pick apart the logical fallicies in arguments for positions he does not agree with, he will use those same logical fallicies to advance his own arguments. One does not have to listen to him for long to find examples.

Rush is an entertainer, same as any other news or opinion person. His job is the same as Dan Rather's which is the same as Randi Rhode's which is the same as everyone else on TV or radio, nothing more nothing left. He is there to get you to listen long enough to hear the commericals. If he or any other news person quites selling soap and toothpaste they will no longer be on the air. The idea of a impartial news source is a myth. Since you know what Limbaugh's prejudices are you can at least be an infromed listener.