Limbaugh: "The Obama Recession Has Begun"

[BenBurch]

Same rants, same "The Other Side Is EVIL!', same use of half truths and distorted news, and same embrace of extremist opinions in Rhodes 9/11 Trutherism.
Frankly, Ben, you rant of Wendesday shows why you like Rhodes so much.
That Air America felt it necessary to get rid of her should tell you something.

Respectfully, you don't know squat about what went on at Air America, and I am not at liberty to enlighten you.

And Randi is absolutely not a Truther, at least in the sense of thinking there was some "inside job," so that you think so shows that you have absolutely no idea at all what you are talking about.

And let me ask you; When "the other side" permits torture, extraordinary transfer of prisoners to other countries for "interrogation," lies about intelligence to start a war, lies about the conduct of that war, fights that war with maximal command incompetence in depraved indifference to the results, craps on American soldiers injured in that botched war, trashes essential liberties and protections, wiretaps Americans without warrant, permits the looting of the treasury under cover of national security for their business associates, and crashes the economy of the nation, can you at all justify thinking that "EVIL" is not an apt characterization of that "other side?"

This is not an abstract group we are discussing here. These are specific people who did specific things, and those things absolutely were evil, and if one does not believe in the concept of evil, one absolutely needs to admit that those who do would see those actions in that light.

But I do know that some people will excuse any crimes whatsoever if that allows them to flatter themselves that they are being "fair" or "civil."

Screw that.

 

[SezMe]

I didn't know that. I won't bother with him anymore.

While he's got a conspiracy gene in him, he's not a full-on truther. On a number of other topics he's an articulate advocate for his liberal perspective. He's the only talker I know of that routinely invites people on who vehemently disagree with him and debates them in a civil manner. It's a mode the whole nation needs to adopt. I would urge you not to tune him out just for one idiosyncracy.

 

[Cain]

While he's got a conspiracy gene in him, he's not a full-on truther. On a number of other topics he's an articulate advocate for his liberal perspective. He's the only talker I know of that routinely invites people on who vehemently disagree with him and debates them in a civil manner. It's a mode the whole nation needs to adopt. I would urge you not to tune him out just for one idiosyncracy.

From what I've heard he's an intelligent, well-meaning guy. One time he had apparently asked a pointed question (of a personal nature, relating to hypocrisy) to someone in an interview and callers were cheering him on for it throughout the show, but he regretted it. Never heard about the conspiracy theory stuff, but what turned me off was learning he has a Ph.D in homeopathic "medicine."

 

[Darth Rotor]

While he's got a conspiracy gene in him, he's not a full-on truther. On a number of other topics he's an articulate advocate for his liberal perspective. He's the only talker I know of that routinely invites people on who vehemently disagree with him and debates them in a civil manner. It's a mode the whole nation needs to adopt. I would urge you not to tune him out just for one idiosyncracy.

Sort of a left of center Bill Buckley?

I have never heard of this guy.

 

[Praktik]

And let me ask you; When "the other side" permits torture, extraordinary transfer of prisoners to other countries for "interrogation," lies about intelligence to start a war, lies about the conduct of that war, fights that war with maximal command incompetence in depraved indifference to the results, craps on American soldiers injured in that botched war, trashes essential liberties and protections, wiretaps Americans without warrant, permits the looting of the treasury under cover of national security for their business associates, and crashes the economy of the nation, can you at all justify thinking that "EVIL" is not an apt characterization of that "other side?"

This is not an abstract group we are discussing here. These are specific people who did specific things, and those things absolutely were evil, and if one does not believe in the concept of evil, one absolutely needs to admit that those who do would see those actions in that light.

Ok, I'm actually on your side on all of this. But part of my fascination with American politics over the last decade or so has stemmed from "that side" - the GOP - and how your conservatives seem so much more crazy than our more mild-mannered versions here in Canada. It was something i NEEDED to know about! So now I've got a bookshelf full of Pat Buchanan books, Tom Delay's latest, Michael Lind, Thomas Frank, issues of the Weekly Standard, The American Conservative and a Commentary anthology from the 70s.

Seems to me they really aren't consciously evil - I honestly believe that most of them subscribe honestly to the tenets of their platform. I think the outcomes of their policies could be fairly described as evil, callous or any number of other terms in that vein, but I do not think that they themselves are evil.

Now this is maybe not that great a defense for them and I'll be the first to admit that. Heck, you could even say that Hitler had a series of rationalizations that the holocaust and the subjugation of the slavs were "for the greater good" - that doesn't change the evilness of his policies. But I do think the distinction holds true even for him.

And I agree with the sentiment that sometimes our outrage at the inhuman policies of a given tyrant, or in this case, "movement conservatives" causes us to forget the essential humanity of the individuals we are discussing and ultimately prevents us from truly understanding how they got the way they are. Its a bit of an intellectual cop-out to wave our hands in disgust and dismiss these policies as the product of "evil".

They are instead - the product of the cultural and political milieu, of expediency and self-interest, and the human need to see ourselves in a positive light - even when enacting what turn out to be horrendous and yes, "evil" policies.

 

[D'rok]

Ok, I'm actually on your side on all of this. But part of my fascination with American politics over the last decade or so has stemmed from "that side" - the GOP - and how your conservatives seem so much more crazy than our more mild-mannered versions here in Canada. It was something i NEEDED to know about! So now I've got a bookshelf full of Pat Buchanan books, Tom Delay's latest, Michael Lind, Thomas Frank, issues of the Weekly Standard, The American Conservative and a Commentary anthology from the 70s.

Seems to me they really aren't consciously evil - I honestly believe that most of them subscribe honestly to the tenets of their platform. I think the outcomes of their policies could be fairly described as evil, callous or any number of other terms in that vein, but I do not think that they themselves are evil.

Now this is maybe not that great a defense for them and I'll be the first to admit that. Heck, you could even say that Hitler had a series of rationalizations that the holocaust and the subjugation of the slavs were "for the greater good" - that doesn't change the evilness of his policies. But I do think the distinction holds true even for him.

And I agree with the sentiment that sometimes our outrage at the inhuman policies of a given tyrant, or in this case, "movement conservatives" causes us to forget the essential humanity of the individuals we are discussing and ultimately prevents us from truly understanding how they got the way they are. Its a bit of an intellectual cop-out to wave our hands in disgust and dismiss these policies as the product of "evil".

They are instead - the product of the cultural and political milieu, of expediency and self-interest, and the human need to see ourselves in a positive light - even when enacting what turn out to be horrendous and yes, "evil" policies.

You are describing Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil".

http://www.amazon.com/Eichmann-Jerusalem-Report-Banality-Evil/dp/0140187650

 

[RandFan]

While he's got a conspiracy gene in him, he's not a full-on truther. On a number of other topics he's an articulate advocate for his liberal perspective. He's the only talker I know of that routinely invites people on who vehemently disagree with him and debates them in a civil manner. It's a mode the whole nation needs to adopt. I would urge you not to tune him out just for one idiosyncracy.

I confess I really have a knee-jerk reaction to Truthers. It seems like such an abandonment of reason. To me it's like someone believing the world is flat. I won't cross him off completely.

 

[RandFan]

And let me ask you; When "the other side" permits torture, extraordinary transfer of prisoners to other countries for "interrogation," lies about intelligence to start a war, lies about the conduct of that war, fights that war with maximal command incompetence in depraved indifference to the results, craps on American soldiers injured in that botched war, trashes essential liberties and protections, wiretaps Americans without warrant, permits the looting of the treasury under cover of national security for their business associates, and crashes the economy of the nation, can you at all justify thinking that "EVIL" is not an apt characterization of that "other side?".

Sounds like, to a significant degree, Truman, FDR, Lincoln and other presidents.

You are naive Ben. I don't mean to be cynical or condone the actions but you are and further you paint these events only in the starkest light. There is no nuance in your world view. There are good guys and bad guys. Good guys? Dems. Bad guys? Republicans.

In your world view these events only happened because evil men wanted to commit evil. Childish and ignorant of history.

It's BS but I can't get people to open their eyes. People see what they want to see. It's not skeptical. It's not critical thinking but hey, it gets you through the night.

 

[dudalb]

Ben, Several people have posted sound files here of Rhodes in full Truther mode.
She sounds no different then any other Truther.
She is either a Truther or is willing to knowing spread lies to further her political agends. Not good for her in any case.

 

[Praktik]

You are describing Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil".

http://www.amazon.com/Eichmann-Jerusalem-Report-Banality-Evil/dp/0140187650

One more for the list! Thanks!

 

[SezMe]

Never heard about the conspiracy theory stuff, but what turned me off was learning he has a Ph.D in homeopathic "medicine."

That is a turn off for sure. Like the month he spent in China studying accupuncture. It all fits into his woo box. It's a pretty small box but it is definitely there.

Sort of a left of center Bill Buckley?

Well, not quite. I hold Bill in pretty high esteem but the analogy is not entirely wrong either.

You can catch him here. When he does debate someone, it is usually right at the beginning of his show.

 

[leftysergeant]

Same rants, same "The Other Side Is EVIL!', same use of half truths and distorted news, and same embrace of extremist opinions in Rhodes 9/11 Trutherism.

Mostly, she just wonders how anybody could screw up as badly as Bushcheneyrummy.

That Air America felt it necessary to get rid of her should tell you something.

It tells us that AAR is not well-run as a radio business. She was one of their best.

She is also one of the few talk-radio people with a clue about military affairs and what the veterans need. Only she has served in the Armed Forces and never been convicted of a felony. When Randi speaks about what soldiers need from their leaders, she speaks from experience. When the fat deaf pill-popper addresses the needs of soldiers or what it means to serve, it is coming out of his trousers.

 

[Whiplash]

Rush drug using, often divorced, butt cyst kept him from the draft, Limbaugh, really isn't conservative enough for Rush, drug users are bad people, conservative values, Clinton was a draft dodger, Limbaugh. To say he is a hypocrite is to badly malign hypocrites.

With all due respect, I think people are far too quick to dismiss Rush's pilonidal cyst. And I'm someone who can speak on authority with this, because I had one when I was 18.

It started as a feeling of pain at the base of my tailbone, which progressivley got worse until I got to a point that I was virtually unable to do anything without excruciating pain. Walking, moving around at all.. I couldn't even lay down comfortably. It was absolutely awful. I cannot stress this enough, it's position was such that even the slightest movement would cause great pain. It was absolutely debilitating.

When I went to the doctor, they first they did was pop/drain it in an outpatient procedure. This immediately diminished the pain. But in a matter of just a couple of weeks to a month (IIRC), it started to hurt again, just as bad as before.

It was decided I needed surgery to have it removed. I went in and had the operation. After it was over, I found that they had litteraly cut me a new a-hole, so to speak. It was a good inch deep hole/excavation at the top of my butt crack. I had to pack and unpack gauze in it every day for months. It took nearly a year to fully heal, and never fully closed.. even to this day. But at least 6 months of that time I had to change the guaze a couple of times a day, and be careful about keeping it clean and so forth. And I had to move carefully and gingerly for a long time to make sure I didn't tear it back open where it had healed.

There is no way in hell I would have been able to do any military duty during this. Absolutely no way. The pain was excruciating. And even after sugery it was at least 6 months to a year before the thing was finally closed up and healed enough for me to feel even remotely normal down there.

I don't know what procudures Rush may have had in this regard. Maybe he just had one popped and it went away. Maybe he had the surgery. But if his experience was anything like mine, I understand and agree 100% that he was in no way fit for military duty. I couldn't even work during the height of the problem. I was bed ridden in awful pain. And it interfered with my life for many long months after. I couldn't do more than simple labor at best.

I do hope that people will actually consider this experience when they are so quick to dismiss the "little cyst on his butt" because the experience is absolutely 1000 times worse than that.

 

[Gregoire]

I was amazed when I heard him say it today. He had invented a whole new fallacy. "Pre hoc ergo proctor hoc"

Actually, of course, he was saying that the mere election of Obama had caused us to slip into recession. Of course, in that case he is committing the fallacy of confusing cause and effect.

I heard Rush say just before the election very pointedly that McCain would win because polls always underestimate the Republican vote. (Didn't he also say something like this on TV in 1992?)

So I would ask any of you who listen to his program: Did he ever apologize for being wrong?????


No, wait, I think I know the answer.

 

[Gregoire]

Ben, Several people have posted sound files here of Rhodes in full Truther mode.
She sounds no different then any other Truther.
She is either a Truther or is willing to knowing spread lies to further her political agends. Not good for her in any case.

I haven't listened to Rhodes in a while now, so I don't any concrete examples at my finger tips. But I would say that she and Limbaugh both believe any "fact" unquestioningly that supports their world view, no matter how outrageous. And both are skeptical any evidence contradicting their world view without any real honest critical thinking.

Politics, of course, by nature is filled with this (even on the JREF forum), but I would say the two of them have made it into an art form. And I guess the evidence would suggest that is what the public wants.

 

[kallsop]

Here's my final thought. If Obama is held responsible for the post election market slump, fair is fair, he will be responsible for any market recovery that comes along. Conversely, all those saying Rush is a fool and are of the opinion that Obama's victory is not responsible for the market, won't be able to credit Obama in any good news.

Certainly there is an economic panic at the moment, promoted relentlessly the last 8 years, intensifying over the last 2 years of the campaign. It might take 8 years of positive media coverage to turn things around. We'll find out, starting .... January 20th 2009. There are still a couple of months left to blame Bush and feed the panic.

 

[D'rok]

Here's my final thought. If Obama is held responsible for the post election market slump, fair is fair, he will be responsible for any market recovery that comes along. Conversely, all those saying Rush is a fool and are of the opinion that Obama's victory is not responsible for the market, won't be able to credit Obama in any good news.

Does not follow. The policies of the upcoming Obama administration can have an effect on the economy regardless of whether or not his election caused market jitters. That policy effect can be positive or negative. In both cases, the credit or blame will be his. The initial conditions are irrelevant.

Also, Obama cannot be held responsible for market jitters even if his election caused them. He can only be held responsible if he acted towards the economy and a result occurred.

Your opinion (or anyone else's) on the cause of the initial economic conditions faced by the Obama administration is not connected to the results of his future economic policy.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Schnitt is actually worse than Rush, if only because he doesn't have Rush's slick production and performance experience to make his rants at least entertaining to listen to. Schnitt just rants angrily.

He's like Free Republic given a radio voice.

Like I said, he's entitled to his opinion, and I openly admit I'm partisan myself. I still wouldn't get near him with a 10-foot pole when I'm debating politics though

I'm not a regular listener of his talk show, so if he's done anything like rush calling people to register as another party to vote for another candidate in the primaries then let me know.... That's what got me to stop using Rush as a source for my political stances

 

[Meadmaker]

It might take 8 years of positive media coverage to turn things around. We'll find out, starting .... January 20th 2009. There are still a couple of months left to blame Bush and feed the panic.

Do you think it is possible that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't the media coverage that created the current economic conditions, but possibly the actual market conditions, combined with the effect of economic policies? I'm just saying that perhaps the existence of 60 trillion dollars of credit default swaps contributed to the problem somehow, independent of how the media covered the Bush administration.

 

[jman19999]

Michael Savage is the worst. He makes Rush mild by comparison. He attacks anyone who disagrees with him with so much venom and hatred that I stopped listening to him years ago. It's almost like he wants liberals to die a painful death or something. I feel sorry for those who try to get in a word on the phone if they disagree with him. There are no fair two-sided points in politics. I lost interested in politics because of this. Just tired of the b.s from all sides.

The news talk shows? Forget that. Only thing I have learned from them is how to be a better interrupter.

Jeff