Rush, Rush, Rush... liberals are equivalent to murderers and rapists?

The BBQ Pit
121

If I may be blunt, horseshit. For starters, he wasn’t even saying that liberals are a threat. He was talking about motivations that he cares little about. Secondly, liberals are as big a threat as murderers? That’s much better. Even if it were true, it’s still absolutely idiotic. Lastly, Limbaugh is no dewey eyed innocent. He knew exactly what he was saying and what he was implying. He left just enough wiggle room for his supporters to claim that he is innocent of any wrongdoing while inflaming those who’re agin 'im. With regards to that, Bricker had him nailed.

Funny. I’ve listened to his show too. I agree that he’s not an idiot. He’s an attention whore. A troll. A cut rate Ann Coulter with bigger jugs and a smaller adams apple. He cares less for the party as he does for himself. You could listen to his show for a year and hear virtually nothing about conservative thought with the only exception being that liberals are the enemy. The rest is about how he is the leader of the conservative movement (How quickly William Buckley must be spinning right now) and how bravely he stands in the face of the enemy. Never mind how quickly he hides behind the screen of being an entertainer and an editorialist when confronted. Sure there’s a smattering of buzz words (fiscal responsibility, free speech, free market, common sense, responsibility, american values) but they are never in a context where they mean any more than something that liberals are against. And every now and again he crawls out from under his bridge and lays a bag of flaming doody on someones porch (I hope Obama fails) and then marvels at how the left overrreacts at something clearly taken out of context all the while basking in the adoration of his dittoheads.

Bricker may not have it correct here, but he may have just been reaching for a convinient shorthand as well.

122

No, he grouped them as bad things that need to be fought regardless of the rationale. In other words, you fight murder regardless of the murderer’s rationale. You fight rape regardless of the rapist’s rationale. And you fight liberalism regardless of its rationale.

In other words, if things are harmful or bad you fight them regardless of the rationale that drove them, and just like we don’t cut murderers or rapists slack because the harm they do renders their motives inconsequential, we shouldn’t cut liberalism slack because the harm it does renders its motives inconsequential.

And 5-4, I’m afraid you’re hoist on your own petard here. If you’ll go back and look at my post you’ll see that my remark regarding reading comprehension was addressed to Guin, not you. :smiley:

123

Are you familiar with the concept of low hanging fruit? Do you think that lekatt and kanicbird are two of the most respected posters around these parts?

Rush says a lot of stupid bullshit. He’s a troll, except that trolls just piss everyone off: Rush’s moronic statements somehow convince a large number of people. His show oughtta be titled “Nobody ever went broke.”

This is another example of his stupid bullshit.

Daniel

124

Actually, if anyone, Rush reminds me of december. Who, IIRC, was banned for the kind of shit Rush pulls.

125

Banned name!

126

Look, this isn’t that complicated. Limbaugh was saying that when things are bad or have bad consequences they need to be fought regardless of motive. This is evident in his remarks about the beheading, that it doesn’t matter whether it was a beheading or domestic abuse, it’s just as bad either way and the killer’s motive is of no consequence.

He was obviously attempting to undercut the sentiment that even if liberalism is bad and causes problems, its heart is in the right place so we should be more understanding and accomodating toward it. He zeroed in on rape and murder to illustrate his point because they are the most obvious examples where bad is bad and motive doesn’t matter.

127

Could you clarify this a bit more cause it honestly sounds that you are comparing liberalism to rape and murder more than Rush did.

128

Well, now that you’re warmed up, maybe you can explain that incredibly stupid “NOW” remark from the Pillsbury D’oh Boy? Since you got your semantic parsing tools all sharpened up, should be a cinch.

129

Recent electoral events have them distraught, the poor dears. They feel like they were fucked by a train and stuffed into a wood chipper.

130

You’re not familiar with Starving Artist’s body of work, are you?

131

Yet he was, somehow, not equating the badness of liberalism with the badness or rape and murder?

You like to pretend that you’re all intelligent and polite and shit, and you like to pretend that it is the fault of liberals that public discourse has become less polite, and yet you turn yourself into a pretzel to defend this?

132

Oh my yes. SA’s not a bad guy really. Just seems to get a bit blinkered when it comes to politics.

I can’t be the only person who finds it odd that even those who are defending El Rushbo are having problems correctly mining meaning from his words.

133

Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it any more true.

He grouped liberals with rapists and murderers. Period. Even if he was promoting rape, murder, and liberal ideology, he grouped them. Among people who speak English, when you group things and say the same thing about them, no matter what it is, you are saying that some aspect of them is similar enough to deserve being in the same group.

In this case, Rush was grouping them together and labeling them “bad”. To people who speak English, when three things are grouped together and given a label, and two of them seem to fit that label to a very similar degree, the expectation is that the person doing the grouping intends you to see the third thing as being of a simlar degree of “x factor” as the other two.

You want to say “gee”, they are all “bad”, no big.

But in fact, they are not “bad, bad, and bad” They are (if you agree that liberal is a negative, which I do not…) “About as bad as bad can possibly be, Just a hair less bad than that, and Not Good.”

NOT TO MENTION… that even a child could identify “Which of these things is not like the others?”

Murder: CRIME against an individual involving damaging the body of a human to such a degree that they die.

Rape: CRIME Against an individual involving the violation of the body, mind, and spirit, usually involving violence and always involving psychic scarring.

Liberalism: well, rather than give one definition to debate, here’s a whole slew offered by google, pick the one you think is so naturally similar to the crimes of rape and murder, (without equating them with the crimes of rape and murder, obviously, because Rush wasn’t doing that!) that it makes sense to group the three as examples of “bad”:

134

PS: Motives for murder absolutely DO matter, Starv. Self-defense, defense of another, insanity, etc. Der.

135

Hey, missed a few…

liberal - Not narrow or contracted.

liberal - Associations who supported National Liberal candidates remained affiliated to the National Liberal Federation until that body was dissolved in …
www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Contributions-to-liberal-theory

liberal - Traditionally, the word liberal means to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others. To be liberal politically, is to emphasize political and economic freedom. They tend to favor gradual changes in society and promote government programs to solve problems.
warrensburg.k12.mo.us/iadventure/allamerican/glossary.html

liberal - Political view that supports gradual change and government spending to assist lower classes in society.
www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/html/vocansw.htm

liberal - law and order days over, says Blair

liberal - Giving or generous, or broad minded, tolerant of other ideals, nontraditional.

liberal - favorable to progress or reform
mm.hightechhigh.org/summer08/Vocabulary%202%20MLK-College%20Years.doc

136

Yep, and in this case, that “aspect of them” is Rush’s attitude towards the motives of the people who do those things.

137

Step away from the Google.

138

You know I did that JUST for you, my sweet. Hehehehehe

139

I do not understand this statement. Could you rephrase?

140

I agree with you that there is some aspect of each item in the group that is identical. In this case, the aspect that is identical is Rush’s attitude toward the motivation of the actor. The way they are identical is that Rush doesn’t care about the motive.