Limbaugh Takes a Shot at Atheists/Agnostics

[Moochie]

On the contrary, Moochie. There are many independent thinkers in this country, and they're anything BUT muted. The problem is finding SMART thinkers in this country.

Define "SMART." And according to whom?

Part of the problem with our declining state of liberty in this country is that we have too many people who not only expect, but demand, that the government provide or mandate certain services to people. And while some of that might not have happened if the government didn't get involved, you have to wonder how things might have developed if people had accepted their own responsibilities, not only to themselves, but to one another.

And it is wrong for people to express their responsibilities collectively, through their elected representatives?

But there ARE people who take him seriously, primarily because there were those on the political Left and in the government, especially those who mandated the "Fairness" Doctrine in all Broadcast Media, who kept guys like Limbaugh quiet. Had we been hearing guys like him from the beginning, we'd have been used to this sort of silliness, and it would have been easier to dismiss. As it is, with Congressional Democrats screaming for a return to the Fairness Doctrin, Limbaugh gains an even greater following because he's not only a novelty, comparatively speaking, but because listening to him has the cachet of being "forbidden."

Here in Australia we don't even think about keeping guys like Limbaugh quiet. We just take the p*ss out of them. We'd miss them if we didn't have them to send up. But then, this isn't America, and we don't have anyone as rabid as RL. (We could sure do with a few Howard Sterns, though!)

The rest of us realize this and either switch stations, or turn the damn thing off.

Precisely.


M.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I don't find much problem with the religious righties in the Republican Party, since I don't believe they hold nearly the power the GOP leadership allows them to think they hold. It does get uncomfortable at times, though. I'm more than a little tired of political gatherings where some local yokel feels the need to "open with prayer."

I would have tended to agree with you before Dubbya came into power. However when I watch the president and his allies pander to IDiots, set up an FDA that denies approval for over-the-counter contraceptives based on religious grounds, put an anti-science crony into NASA, step into the Terry Schiavo matter, "faith based initiatives," and other areas where the GOP has stepped over the church/state line, I don't think we can ignore the influence the Christian Right has.

It's difficult for me to understand a humanist not being bothered by unfettered abortion, but - hey! - that's just me.

It's difficult for me to understand a humanist who is bothered by unfettered abortion, but - hey! - that's just me.

I share your views completely on the Libertarian Party. I sympathize with so much of their outlook, but that party is a non-starter. Folks from all over the political spectrum, conspiracy nuts - you name it. I admire Shermer for trying to stick with it, but I can't do it.

Part of what killed it for me was watching the LP-faithful carefully scrutinize the election results and declaring a "moral victory" because they gained two or three voters since the last election. Sorry, the victor is the guy who actually won the seat. That and after Art Bell declared his support for the LP I got tired of having to defend myself against those who pointed out I was now in league with a major woo woo.

Any lingering support I had for the LP was killed by Badnarik's run for president. I don't think that blowing up the UN building and banning driver's licences is going to get you much support, even from those who support "limited government."

When I do go to the polls--which is becoming harder for me to do each election--I usually write in "None Of The Above." It's about as effective as voting for the LP or any other third party but I don't feel as if I'm betraying my principles by for voting for one of the two major parties, neither of which represent my beliefs.

 

[kevin]

If you need any evidence simply reference the "Blame Bush" crowd

Except of course the Bush really is in charge. You'd think if anyone was to blame it was the person in charge. But then I guess that's been the point of most of his administration "it's not my fault."

 

[Red Siegfried]

Except of course the Bush really is in charge. You'd think if anyone was to blame it was the person in charge. But then I guess that's been the point of most of his administration "it's not my fault."

Yes, and that makes the Bush administration so much different than the last X number of administrations. They ALL enjoy very much having their political opponents to blame when they don't get their way or something goes wrong.

I'm sorry, maybe you live in some sort of dictatorship where you're used to seeing the guy in charge always getting his way all the time. Makes placing blame easy, and, as we know, fixing blame is the first step to solving problems, right?

Tribal thinking. Mommy and Daddy aren't here to make things all better for you.

In America we have three coequal branches of the federal government that oversee a republic with democratically elected representatives. Then we get to drill down even further to the state, county and local levels of government. This is done to keep any one person or any one political block from grabbing too much power. Personally, I'm surprised anyone gets anything done at all.

And now, back to our liberal brothers and sisters who will continue their whining about the evil Bushitler and Rush until the next liberal President is elected at which time we will have acheived Nirvana. Amen.

 

[Hellbound]

In America we have three coequal branches of the federal government that oversee a republic with democratically elected representatives. Then we get to drill down even further to the state, county and local levels of government. Personally, I'm surprised anyone gets anything done at all.

Yep.

And in fact, it's this resistence to doing anything that gives democracy it's good standing. It's enforced mediocrity. Democracy makes it very hard for anyone to make drastic, detrimental changes. Of course, in the same style, it makes it difficult for anyone to make drastic, beneficial changes as well. A two-edged sword. But it works because, history has taught us, if there's a way for someone to abuse power, someone (eventually) will. And the more power an individual has to abuse, the harder it is to stop them.

 

[Dcdrac]

i know two social conservatives who are atheiasts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I would have tended to agree with you before Dubbya came into power. However when I watch the president and his allies pander to IDiots, set up an FDA that denies approval for over-the-counter contraceptives based on religious grounds, put an anti-science crony into NASA, step into the Terry Schiavo matter, "faith based initiatives," and other areas where the GOP has stepped over the church/state line, I don't think we can ignore the influence the Christian Right has.

Well, yes.

So maybe you should rethink this:

I realized that it doesn't matter who is elected to office, because it's always going to be a greedy, power-hungry, control freak who is bent on telling everyone how to live and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Time, I think, to choose the lesser of two weasels. Which is worse, a greedy, power-hungry, control freak who is bent on telling everyone how to live, or a greedy, power-hungry, control freak who is bent on telling everyone how to live and is a fundie?

Right.

 

[kevin]

That was funny, as was the second response to it.

I can just imagine the government bureocarcy such a service would create. It might be bigger than the DHD, FBI, CIA, ATF and IRS combined.

I shudder at the thought...I cringe at the resultant...timely...reports.

I don't see why it would need to be bigger than the weather service. But I don't see traffic as a needed federal government service either. Local service yes.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Yep.

And in fact, it's this resistence to doing anything that gives democracy it's good standing. It's enforced mediocrity. Democracy makes it very hard for anyone to make drastic, detrimental changes. Of course, in the same style, it makes it difficult for anyone to make drastic, beneficial changes as well. A two-edged sword. But it works because, history has taught us, if there's a way for someone to abuse power, someone (eventually) will. And the more power an individual has to abuse, the harder it is to stop them.

Well said.

 

[Jeremy]

If you are interested in libertarian politics, but dislike the Libertarian Party, you should check out www-dot-Cato-dot-org (sorry, I have not yet earned the priveledge to post links). Same general idea, but they tend to be more pragmatic.

 

[Ladewig]

And now, back to our liberal brothers and sisters who will continue their whining about the evil Bushitler and Rush until the next liberal President is elected at which time we will have acheived Nirvana. Amen.

Don't put words in our mouths. We didn't say it will be Nirvana, we said it would feel like Nirvana to not have a president who says things like:

Harriet Myers is the most qualified person for the job.
Heckva job, Brownie.
I don't read newspapers.
The jury is still out on evolution.
We wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America.
I refuse to be sucked into your hypnotheoretical arguments. (O.K. I'll confess I like this one)
I hear there's rumors (sic) on the internets (sic) that we're going to have a draft.
If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.


I might not have agreed with everything G.H.W. Bush did, but at least I felt like he knew what he was doing. W. is in over his head.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Don't put words in our mouths. We didn't say it will be Nirvana, we said it would feel like Nirvana to not have a president who says things like:

Harriet Myers is the most qualified person for the job.
Heckva job, Brownie.
I don't read newspapers.
The jury is still out on evolution.
We wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America.
I refuse to be sucked into your hypnotheoretical arguments. (O.K. I'll confess I like this one)
I hear there's rumors (sic) on the internets (sic) that we're going to have a draft.
If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.


I might not have agreed with everything G.H.W. Bush did, but at least I felt like he knew what he was doing. W. is in over his head.

Yes, out of all the speechifying President Bush has done over the years it's very easy to find stupid things he said. Well done, I'm sure you've never misspoken or mispronounced anything in public before. Can you explain how that makes him different than any other president and also maybe explain why certain people on the political spectrum enjoy incorrectly characterizing someone as of below average intelligence simply because they disagree with their politics? Once again, tribal thinking. He's wrong, therefore he's stupid. That gets us nowhere. More whining.

Certain people can't win on ideas, so they attack the man. Sure, attacking his policies and opinions is okay, but going after the man and his mannerisms really accomplishes nothing (with the exception of being humorous)

His speech patterns and misstatements really don't have much to do with whether his policies are good for America or not. The only one I'll give you there is the bit about evolution. But even though evolution is a scientifically proven fact, like it or not the "jury" still IS out on it, meaning that not everyone understands that it is true and not "just a theory." Of course, they're wrong, but that's how I understood that statement. Does Bush think that evolution is "just a theory?" Oh, probably. And he's wrong.

Then again, I'm drifting off topic. We were talking about Limbaugh.

 

[Dcdrac]

When I first saw Rush Limbaugh on TV i thought he was a comedian doing a send up, mind you I didn't grasp Fox News was meant to be serious until my freind asked me what was it I was finding so funny.

 

[Ladewig]

Yes, out of all the speechifying President Bush has done over the years it's very easy to find stupid things he said. Well done, I'm sure you've never misspoken or mispronounced anything in public before. Can you explain how that makes him different than any other president and also maybe explain why certain people on the political spectrum enjoy incorrectly characterizing someone as of below average intelligence simply because they disagree with their politics? Once again, tribal thinking. He's wrong, therefore he's stupid. That gets us nowhere. More whining.

Certain people can't win on ideas, so they attack the man. Sure, attacking his policies and opinions is okay, but going after the man and his mannerisms really accomplishes nothing (with the exception of being humorous)

His speech patterns and misstatements really don't have much to do with whether his policies are good for America or not. The only one I'll give you there is the bit about evolution. But even though evolution is a scientifically proven fact, like it or not the "jury" still IS out on it, meaning that not everyone understands that it is true and not "just a theory." Of course, they're wrong, but that's how I understood that statement. Does Bush think that evolution is "just a theory?" Oh, probably. And he's wrong.

Then again, I'm drifting off topic. We were talking about Limbaugh.

I see your point and the last four items on my list do fall into that category. Perhaps it was unfair to include them, as I and almost everyone I know mispeak sometimes. On the other hand, the first four items are not about misprouncing words or getting confused. Quoting those lines illustrates the president's position on important matters. As for your interpretation of "the jury is still out," I don't think that what Mr. Bush meant. After all, he went on to say that both sides of the matter should be taught. Of course, the only way to find out exactly what he meant would be to ask him. However that is not possible, because the president refuses to speak to unscreened audiences, which I consider more evidence that Bush is not qualified for the position of president.

 

[Ladewig]

As for Limbaugh, I see him a clown that no one should take seriously. His repeated speculation that Mr. Clinton was planning an October Surprise in 1999, his implications that Hillary and Bill killed Vince Foster, his overuse of the term feminazi, and a variety of other items indicate that he is not trying to be journalist.

Limbaugh and his ilk have lowered the level of political discourse in this country.

 

[Dcdrac]

I would love to put Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill o' Reilly up against Jeremy Paxman of the BBCs Newsnight he would destroy them and they would not be able to cut his mike like O'Reilly does in his show when his opponent is clearly getting the better of him.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, and that makes the Bush administration so much different than the last X number of administrations. They ALL enjoy very much having their political opponents to blame when they don't get their way or something goes wrong.

I'm sorry, maybe you live in some sort of dictatorship where you're used to seeing the guy in charge always getting his way all the time. Makes placing blame easy, and, as we know, fixing blame is the first step to solving problems, right?

Tribal thinking. Mommy and Daddy aren't here to make things all better for you.

In America we have three coequal branches of the federal government that oversee a republic with democratically elected representatives. Then we get to drill down even further to the state, county and local levels of government. This is done to keep any one person or any one political block from grabbing too much power. Personally, I'm surprised anyone gets anything done at all.

And now, back to our liberal brothers and sisters who will continue their whining about the evil Bushitler and Rush until the next liberal President is elected at which time we will have acheived Nirvana. Amen.

You don't see your relentless sarcasm, insults and denigration as tribalism? What is it then?

 

[Red Siegfried]

You don't see your relentless sarcasm, insults and denigration as tribalism? What is it then?

"I don't always practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, 1953

"If the shoe fits, wear it."
-Unknown

I see my relentless, evil, mean spirited, insensitive (and probably racist, sexist and homophobic too, don't want to leave anything out) attacks on poor, defenseless net forum dwellers merely as sarcasm, facetiousness and (poor?) attempts at humor. The difference is that I recognize it and don't really believe it. But that doesn't come across very well in a discussion forum.

I apologize if my sense of sarcasm often is more than is called for at times but I get a little annoyed when I'm called stupid simply because I'm "conservative" on some issues and I happen to sometimes agree with a guy that most people seldom listen to and can't stand, but yet seem to know everything about. Then I'm not allowed to dish it back. Sounds suspiciously like double standards and prejudice to me.

You may now continue bashing Rush (don't forget to plug your ears, you might hear something that makes sense to you). Or maybe you could try listening to him for a few weeks and see if there isn't some common ground there. What could it hurt? And by the way, you don't need to tell me that you did that already ... you don't need to prove anything to me. It's just a suggestion.

No offense to anyone, but I think I'd better take a break from this thread for a couple of days before I lose my temper and say something we'll all regret.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

"I don't always practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, 1953

"If the shoe fits, wear it."
-Unknown

I see my relentless, evil, mean spirited, insensitive (and probably racist, sexist and homophobic too, don't want to leave anything out) attacks on poor, defenseless net forum dwellers merely as sarcasm, facetiousness and (poor?) attempts at humor. The difference is that I recognize it and don't really believe it. But that doesn't come across very well in a discussion forum.

I apologize if my sense of sarcasm often is more than is called for at times but I get a little annoyed when I'm called stupid simply because I'm "conservative" on some issues and I happen to sometimes agree with a guy that most people seldom listen to and can't stand, but yet seem to know everything about. Then I'm not allowed to dish it back. Sounds suspiciously like double standards and prejudice to me.

You may now continue bashing Rush (don't forget to plug your ears, you might hear something that makes sense to you). Or maybe you could try listening to him for a few weeks and see if there isn't some common ground there. What could it hurt? And by the way, you don't need to tell me that you did that already ... you don't need to prove anything to me. It's just a suggestion.

No offense to anyone, but I think I'd better take a break from this thread for a couple of days before I lose my temper and say something we'll all regret.

Well, unlike you, some of us actually mean what we say, make an effort to identify when we're kidding around, and in general treat our audience on the forum with the same respect we'd like. You however, admit to being beligerent because it amuses you. You hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself to. You attempt to label your opponnents as intolerant and bigoted when it is you who are beingYou brush off discussion when others disagr You claim to mean what you say when people agree, and you claim to be kidding when called out on it. In this, you're exactly like Rush.

 

[Ladewig]

However that is not possible, because the president refuses to speak to unscreened audiences, which I consider more evidence that Bush is not qualified for the position of president.

I was wrong. The president has spoken to an unscreened audience. The price of his stock has gone up in my book. Of course, the downside of speaking to unscreened audiences is that one gets some wacky questions. http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=54050