Re: POLITICS Limbaugh (was Smoking and Health (was Lance Armstrong & physical abilities)

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >hmmm - I didn't realize that tobacco was a potent hallucinogen. I'll have

> >to give it a try.

>

> Who knows, maybe Rush Limbaugh was kind and pleasant and all that in person

> (though I admit having a hard time believing it) but I don't see how it

> matters. People can be enjoyable dinner companions while also being

> monstrous in many larger senses.

Well, I was joking, but I would not WANT to socialize with Rush Limbaugh, no

matter how pleasant and 'kind' he might be. Hitler was very kind to his dog,

apparently, until he tested out his poison on it.

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Who knows, maybe Rush Limbaugh was kind and pleasant and all that in person

> (though I admit having a hard time believing it)

Well given Hines leftist politics, I doubt he would make that

up. But even further, why would you have a hard time believing it? I

learned a LONG time ago that an image filtered through the media is

rarely accurate, whether it be good or bad, left or right, male or

female, black or white. It is amazing what the media HIDES and just as

amazing what they pump up, if they don't like somebody. And you would

be amazed how many friendships exist across ideological barriers in

the world of media and academia. The folks at ground zero may take

sides, but often the higher ups (so to speak) are happily cavorting

together, *especially* in politics.

Community and character trumps ideology, in my opinion. Give me good

people any day over people who might happen to agree with me but just

don't cut it in the character department.

> but I don't see how it

> matters.

It does matter in the context of the point I was trying to make.

Ripped out of that context, no, it hardly matters at all.

> People can be enjoyable dinner companions while also being

> monstrous in many larger senses.

Limbaugh? Monstrous?

Hitler was monstrous. Mussolini was monstrous. Idi Amin was monstrous.

Lenin was monstrous. Lincoln....no I better not say that. But

Limbaugh? He is a radio jock for crying out loud! Do words mean

anything anymore? I'm starting to feel Christie's pain when she

complained about the woman who labeled Kerry a fascist, LOL!

Limbaugh? Monstrous?

Limbaugh is your typical statist of the neocon variety who has a flair

for entertaining and holding an audience. One that has made him quite

wealthy since apparently there are a lot of other monstrous people in

America, given that he is the most listened to talk radio host in

America. I used to find him fun to listen to before the war, but then

it became difficult to listen to anybody, left or right, after the

war. Now he seems to be a shrill for Bush.

But before I label this statement as prejudicial :-), following up on

's comment, on what basis do you define Mr. Limbaugh as

" monstrous " ?

On the one dimensional political spectrum that defines most of

American politics, he is no more " monstrous " than your typical left

wing statist, just " monstrous " about different things, and sometimes

(no, many times) not even different things..

The People vs. Rush Limbaugh III

http://snipurl.com/gjv3

I'm sure for every " monstrosity " you could list from Limbaugh, I could

find a monstrosity from someone equally well known holding the

opposite political view.

At any rate, that little aside wasn't the point of my smoking post,

but it did remind me I never responded to you business/social

libertarian bifurcation.

[Guest guest]

-

>I

>learned a LONG time ago that an image filtered through the media is

>rarely accurate, whether it be good or bad, left or right, male or

>female, black or white. It is amazing what the media HIDES and just as

>amazing what they pump up, if they don't like somebody. And you would

>be amazed how many friendships exist across ideological barriers in

>the world of media and academia. The folks at ground zero may take

>sides, but often the higher ups (so to speak) are happily cavorting

>together, *especially* in politics.

While I agree with this in general, few media personalities have been as

solely responsible for self-creating their images as Rush Limbaugh. I've

read the man and listened to him enough to know him as he wants to be known.

>Community and character trumps ideology, in my opinion. Give me good

>people any day over people who might happen to agree with me but just

>don't cut it in the character department.

Though I agree in some ways, I also think character and ideology are often

tightly linked. You can't have monstrous ideology without either not

thinking about it at all or having bad character.

>Hitler was monstrous. Mussolini was monstrous. Idi Amin was monstrous.

>Lenin was monstrous. Lincoln....no I better not say that. But

>Limbaugh? He is a radio jock for crying out loud! Do words mean

>anything anymore? I'm starting to feel Christie's pain when she

>complained about the woman who labeled Kerry a fascist, LOL!

Are you familiar with Godwin's Law?

Even if you're not, are you seriously suggesting that there aren't degrees

of monsters, and that I couldn't classify Limbaugh as one level of monster

and Hitler as an entirely different one?

And Lincoln? Gimme a break. The man had his flaws, but this is

absurd. And don't give me some crap about how you didn't want to discuss

Lincoln, because if that were true you would have deleted the whole sentence.

>I'm sure for every " monstrosity " you could list from Limbaugh, I could

>find a monstrosity from someone equally well known holding the

>opposite political view.

Which of course would prove that Limbaugh isn't monstrous. Not.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> Well, I was joking, but I would not WANT to socialize with Rush Limbaugh, no

matter how pleasant and 'kind' he might be. Hitler was very kind to his dog,

apparently, until he tested out his poison on it.

>

I recently found out he was a vegetarian.

http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/

Naomi

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >I

> >learned a LONG time ago that an image filtered through the media is

> >rarely accurate, whether it be good or bad, left or right, male or

> >female, black or white. It is amazing what the media HIDES and just as

> >amazing what they pump up, if they don't like somebody. And you would

> >be amazed how many friendships exist across ideological barriers in

> >the world of media and academia. The folks at ground zero may take

> >sides, but often the higher ups (so to speak) are happily cavorting

> >together, *especially* in politics.

>

> While I agree with this in general, few media personalities have been as

> solely responsible for self-creating their images as Rush Limbaugh. I've

> read the man and listened to him enough to know him as he wants to be known.

I disagree that his image is largely self-created simply because he is

one point in the vast institution we call the media. Whatever he wants

to create it still gets filtered through the larger media, and outside

of those who have listened to him and/or read his books, that is how

they know him. Hines certainly fit into that category, which

was part of his point, and I dare say most folks fit into that

category.

But if you have read his book(s) and listened to the primary source

then that puts you way ahead of the curve (as far as leftists go) and

you shouldn't have any problem answering my question about him further

below.

And by the way, I don't agree with Mr. Limbaugh's politics, he is a

Straussian of the modern variety, and outside of his rhetoric I have

little accord with him. But I used to enjoy listening to him quash

leftists ever so gently on his radio program. He used to (and perhaps

still does) put them at the front of the phone line and then dismantle

them with kid gloves. It was funny and entertaining.

After finishing the discussion he would say something like " just give

me six months . Listen to me for six months and I guarantee you

will be on my side. " Talk about marketing. Having blown away their

misconceptions of him by being kind and listening (and invariably they

nearly all said they thought they would be mistreated), he then

invites them to hang around. The guy is good with a huge ego to match.

And until recently, his $300,000,000 contract was the largest in radio

history. Which got little media attention, well...because it was Rush

Limbaugh, which harkens back to my original point. Contrast that to

all the media attention Stern got when he signed his

$500,000,000 satellite radio contract.

So while I disagree with Rush, I don't agree with modern bureacratic

leftists either (as distinguished from the geunine left), who,

depending on how you define " monstrous " , may be just as " monstrous " as

Mr. Limbaugh. But more about that below.

> >Community and character trumps ideology, in my opinion. Give me good

> >people any day over people who might happen to agree with me but just

> >don't cut it in the character department.

>

> Though I agree in some ways, I also think character and ideology are often

> tightly linked. You can't have monstrous ideology without either not

> thinking about it at all or having bad character.

This is true, but until we see what you consider " monstrous " about

Rush Limbaugh, we don't know in fact that he is a monster now do we?

So I ask again, what ideas make Rush Limbaugh " monstrous. "

> >Hitler was monstrous. Mussolini was monstrous. Idi Amin was monstrous.

> >Lenin was monstrous. Lincoln....no I better not say that. But

> >Limbaugh? He is a radio jock for crying out loud! Do words mean

> >anything anymore? I'm starting to feel Christie's pain when she

> >complained about the woman who labeled Kerry a fascist, LOL!

>

> Are you familiar with Godwin's Law?

Yes, and I have seen two examples of it used just recently, but not in my post.

> Even if you're not, are you seriously suggesting that there aren't degrees

> of monsters, and that I couldn't classify Limbaugh as one level of monster

> and Hitler as an entirely different one?

You could but it remains to be seen if that is in fact so, or if this

is just the overheated political rhetoric that both left and right

throw at each other on that one dimensional spectrum they occupy.

Something along the lines of " Republicans are evil cuz they want to

starve our children or ______ (fill in the blank) " or " Democrats are

evil cuz they are soft on terrorists or _______(fill in the blank) " or

something like that. While no doubt there are some Republicans who

want to starve children and some Democrats who are soft on terrorists,

I doubt either " monstrous " position accurately describes the adherents

of either party, and really amounts to a shallow representation of the

issues involved.

> And Lincoln? Gimme a break. The man had his flaws, but this is

> absurd. And don't give me some crap about how you didn't want to discuss

> Lincoln, because if that were true you would have deleted the whole sentence.

LOL! No I won't give you that crap. Since you didn't bring up any

obscure biblical passages as a defense of your position, there is no

need to.

What is absurd, by my reckoning, is that you can say with a straight

face that Limbaugh is " monstrous " of whatever degree but Lincoln was

just a man with personal flaws and to suggest otherwise is absurd.

While I believe that Lincoln's life reads like a greek tragedy,

everybody on the list I mentioned above (and I meant Stalin instead of

Lenin) was responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands up

to millions of innocent men, women, and children, *including* Abraham

Lincoln. And there is more:

#Abraham Lincoln ordered Generals Sherman (after who we get the name

" sherman tank " ) and Sheidan to destroy, rape, and pillage the south,

destroying CIVILIAN cities where no troops were all along the way. It

was and remains MONSTROUS to this very day.

" Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the

trouble, but the [southern] people. "

Sherman, July 31, 1862

Why do you think the South was democratic for sooooooooo long?

Historical memories die hard. Even pro-Lincoln historians have noted

that if he had lost the war Lincoln and his cronies would have been

hung as war criminals, given his vicious and cruel behavior, and his

constant violating of the Constitution.

I'm not going to even mention the Plains Indians or the *murder* of

anywhere from 300-1000 people in your own city of New York who were

protesting the draft by federal troops.

These are nasty nasty facts that Lincoln apologists can't get around

no matter how hard they try (and they do try, believe me).

#Lincoln was a racist. A benevolent one mind you, but one nonetheless.

He thought black people were inferior, that they shouldn't intermarry

with whites, shouldn't serve on juries or vote, and that they should

be deported upon gaining their freedom. All the while proclaiming

their " natural rights " under the Declaration. Bizarre. While his

actions above are monstrous, his attitude here is just as monstrous.

Another nasty fact that the Lincoln apologists try to wash over.

" I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between

the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the

two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living

together upon the footing of perfect equality. I, and Judge s,

am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior

position. "

August 21, 1858

" What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and

black races. " (Springfield, July 17, 1858)

" . . . I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which

forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. " (ton,

Illinois, September 18, 1858)

" My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to

Liberia. " (Ottawa, August 21, 1858)

Well I guess that would be one way of keeping them from marrying white

women or men in Illinois.

#Lincoln wasn't interested in ending slavery. He was interested in

" saving the Union " . If that meant ending slavery so be it. If that

meant keeping slavery, so be it. The US is the only place in the

northern hemisphere in the 19th century that slavery came to an end

because of war, even though most slaves brought into this hemisphere

*did not* end up in the US.. And that was because Lincoln had this

brillant idea of tying compensation to slave owners with deportation

of slaves out of this country. Another ludicrous idea that obviously

didn't fly.

" My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not

either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union

without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by

freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by

freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do

about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps

to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not

believe it would help to save the Union. "

#Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. He imprisoned upwards of 38,000

people in the *north* because they held contrary views to the war,

including many opposition newspaper editors. He tried civilians

before military tribunals, signed edicts preventing criticism of his

administration, arrested people without warrants and charges, etc.

Jeez louise! Does not this echo some of the talk we heard initially

coming from the neocons in the White House and even now? The current

imperialists have plenty of precedent in King Lincoln.

He even arrested and convicted without due process before a military

tribunal his chief critic in Congress and had him deported. His

treason? Saying in a speech on the house floor that Lincoln had

violated the Consitution, usurped his powers and was trying to

overthrow federalism by creating a strong centralized state. I will

spare you the actual examples.

King Lincoln thought the speech would discourage Ohio lads from

signing up in the war effort, therefore it was treasonous. I'd say

that was rather twisted logic. His act certainly put Congress on

notice not to take him on. The feds made quite a spectacle of the

whole affair (some things never change). He also attempted something

similar with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when he (the Chief

Justice) noted that only Congress had the power to suspend habeus

corpus.

Lincoln not a monster? That is absurd.

Lincoln through all the above and more set the stage for the modern

imperial presidency, which may be okay in your eyes with the right

person in office, but in my book leads to and enables *monstrous* acts

by either party.

Bushwhacked: Why The Evangelical Right Was Wrong

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miles3.html

and

" In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina

Senator C. Calhoun said, 'Stripped of all its covering, the naked

question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a

constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the

basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of

a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in

which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.' The

War between the States answered that question and produced the

foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and

absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force,

threats, and intimidation being the order of the day. "

Professor Walter E.

So I ask, is Limbaugh a racist? Does he promote the suspending of

habeus corpus? Has he been found supporting willy nilly the slaughter

of civilians? Does he think the fugitive slave law was a good idea?

Does he endorse the deportation of blacks " back to Africa? "

Of course by not supporting these things doesn't mean he isn't a

" monster " but it certainly seems to me that anyone who would subscribe

to such a panoply of ideas (and more) *is* most certainly a monster,

thus Mr. Lincoln rightfully belongs in that list.

> >I'm sure for every " monstrosity " you could list from Limbaugh, I could

> >find a monstrosity from someone equally well known holding the

> >opposite political view.

>

> Which of course would prove that Limbaugh isn't monstrous. Not.

Not is correct, which is why I had " monstrosity " in quotes. Until I

see otherwise, I'm contending your charge against Limbaugh is false,

just as it would be equally false for me to parade out the

" monstrosities " of popular leftists who believe statism ought to be

twisted to suit their particular agenda.

Lincoln was a tyrant. Limbaugh is an entertainer. How the latter can

fit into your degrees of " monstrosity " while the former gets a pass is

beyond me.

[Guest guest]

Isn't Limbaugh the one who was going to multiple doctors for oxycontin

prescriptions and the ACLU is protecting his medical record privacy?

Caught Bill O'Reilly jumping up and down over that flipping through

radio stations one day. ACLU being the biggest threat to democracy

there is, to him. Absurd, even if I've mixed Limbaugh up with another.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> Isn't Limbaugh the one who was going to multiple doctors for oxycontin

> prescriptions and the ACLU is protecting his medical record privacy?

> Caught Bill O'Reilly jumping up and down over that flipping through

> radio stations one day. ACLU being the biggest threat to democracy

> there is, to him. Absurd, even if I've mixed Limbaugh up with another.

Nope, that was him. He even went deaf from abuse of oxycontin.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

Lynn,

>

>Nope, that was him. He even went deaf from abuse of oxycontin.

>

>

Are you sure he didn't go deaf from listening to himself for too many years?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> Are you sure he didn't go deaf from listening to himself for too many

> years?

Anything is possible outside the reality-based community!

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

Lynn,

>Anything is possible outside the reality-based community!

>

Is that us? Are we the reality-based community? LOL. Do we have

potential anyway?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>> Anything is possible outside the reality-based community!

>>

> Is that us? Are we the reality-based community? LOL. Do we have

> potential anyway?

A Bush administration official (in an article by Ron Suskind) once

referred dismissively to the press and the liberal/progressive

community as " the reality-based community " :

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that

the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications

director, , I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush.

He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me

something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now

believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the

reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe

that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible

reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment

principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the

world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and

when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that

reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other

new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort

out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to

just study what we do.''

Full article: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/2004-10-16b.html

Lynn S.

proud member of the reality-based community

....acting as well as studying, thank you...

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

>> Is that us? Are we the reality-based community?

Further: Whether you're liberal/progressive or not (I'm left

libertarian), you can still be a member of the reality-based community.

Whether NN is a reality-based group, well, I think we are!

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.deanspeaksforme.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

> >Nope, that was him. He even went deaf from abuse of oxycontin.

> >

> >

> Are you sure he didn't go deaf from listening to himself for

> too many years?

Oh man. You guys are killing me. Rush is great! I've been listening to him

since the early 90's.

And, yeah, the Oxycontin thing was depressing.

When I first tuned in I was afraid that I might go to hell for listening to

this man who wanted to rape babies and hated all people of color. LOL. I

was initially turned off by his pompous shtick but kept listening for some

unknown reason (at the time I was doing a lot of driving around mid-day and

I was tired of the garbage on FM). One day I suddenly understood that his

style is designed precisely to tweak Liberals and once that realization hit

I came to appreciate how good he is at what he does. I have learned a fair

amount from him over the years and am still amazed that it is possible to

make what is essentially a three hour civics course popular enough to become

to the biggest radio show in the US.

Given all of that, I don't really listen to him much any more. He tends to

get tedious when there's no really big news going on and as I'm not a social

conservative I get bored with some of his rantings on those subjects. Yet I

would suggest to you that if you don't listen to him on the days following a

major news event you are most likely only getting half the news.

Ron

[Guest guest]

>

> I learned a LONG time ago that an image filtered through the media is

> > > rarely accurate, whether it be good or bad, left or right, male or female,

> > > black or white. It is amazing what the media HIDES and just as amazing

what

> > > they pump up, if they don't like somebody. And you would be amazed how

many

> > > friendships exist across ideological barriers in the world of media and

> > > academia. The folks at ground zero may take sides, but often the higher

ups

> > > (so to speak) are happily cavorting together, *especially* in politics.

> > >

> >

> > I have to agree with here. Having managed live network TV shows

for almost 15 years the most interesting thing to me was meeting the

" celebrities " before their on-camera appearances. They had to be mic'ed and

filled in on where they were to sit or stand, how much time they had and so

on -- really practical stuff. Some of the most conservative people were the

" wildest " and some of the supposed wild ones were quite conservative..

Lee Roth comes to mind -- really gentlemanly, classy and straight.

By enlarge, the successful famous people seemed the nicest and most polite

-- easiest to work with. The up-and-comers and wannabe's were difficult,

demanding and pretentious. (I think they were afraid that someone might see

how insecure they really felt?) They'd want body-guards and limo's while the

real celebs would often walk over in tennis shoes from the Fairmount and ask

that we please not include their feet in the shot...

If I had to make a blanket statement I would say the right-wingers were a

tad more courteous and nice (and I say that only because some of the

political left-wingers couldn't seem to drop their cynicism for even a

moment.. )

I agree that " image " is largely manufactured by the entire media machine

but the main thing is just one thing: getting it out there. There's a

saying: " Bad PR is just as good as good PR " .

We also did news broadcasts and don't even get me started on how subjective

that whole area is. I take Everything I see on TV with a grain of salt. I

actually I rarely watch it :-)

~Robin Ann

Ps. , it sounds like you know sports guys around here and so you

probably know what a blast it is working with them. For awhile I was doing

Raider and 49er games and each week for part of a season we did this weekly

live segment from some of the players' homes... I remember liking Dwayne

Board and Keena the best :-) That was a while ago...................

[Guest guest]

> Some of the most conservative people were the

> " wildest " and some of the supposed wild ones were quite conservative..

> Lee Roth comes to mind -- really gentlemanly, classy and straight.

Robin,

Saw a friend 10 years after I lived across the road from him. When

asked what he had been doing in that time he said he'd done security

for Van Halen. Told me and DH they were in a hotel one night in

Providence RI, iirc. Lee Roth was in halls being so disruptive

the hotel said they'd have to leave if it wasn't stopped. When friend

tried to quiet DLR and get him back to room, DLR bit him in the ankle.

Saw the scar. Bite was meant to take a chunk out of him.

Ironic, that the media would have possibly bit hard onto that story,

if they'd got it. Meanwhile media bytes continue the image that really

bites.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>

> > Some of the most conservative people were the

> > > > " wildest " and some of the supposed wild ones were quite

> > > conservative..

> > > > Lee Roth comes to mind -- really gentlemanly, classy and straight.

> > > ~Robin

> > >

> > > [wanita]Saw a friend 10 years after I lived across the road from him.

> > > When asked what he had been doing in that time he said he'd done security

> > > for Van Halen. Told me and DH they were in a hotel one night in Providence

> > > RI, iirc. Lee Roth was in halls being so disruptive the hotel said

> > > they'd have to leave if it wasn't stopped. When friend tried to quiet DLR

> > > and get him back to room, DLR bit him in the ankle. Saw the scar. Bite was

> > > meant to take a chunk out of him. Ironic, that the media would have

possibly

> > > bit hard onto that story, if they'd got it. Meanwhile media bytes continue

> > > the image that really bites.

> > > Wanita

> >

> > Exactly. And who knows how that story would " bite " if it came out.

Could even work in his favor in some crowds. Publicity. Anyway, people

aren't always what they would seem to be and I'll be the first to say that.

:-) ~Robin

[Guest guest]

Celebrity flash: I just read that Bob Thornton is celiac and

also casein intolerant. ~Robin Ann