To the GOP: why are some still licking the boots of Rush Limbaugh?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Starving_Artist

Things are commonplace now that would have been thought unthinkable fifty years ago.

You mean like racially integrated drinking fountains and such?

[elucidator]

@Starving_Artist

… (in retrospect, does anybody really think Gore or Kerry were all that great?)…

Compared to Lincoln? No. Compared to the blithering moron we got instead? Yeah, pretty much. Pretty comfortable with that assessment.

[VinylTurnip]

Oh, and incidentally, this:

@Starving_Artist

It’s true that conservatives are less fractious than our liberal counterparts, but I attribute that to our having a pre-established sense of right and wrong and tendency to ask ourselves, when pondering something we want to do, “I want to do this, is it right?”, whereas liberals, who tend to define right and wrong by what they personally want, will say, “I want this, therefore it’s right”.

Would be the most delicious example of satire I’ve seen in a very long time, were it not for the sinking suspicion that you might be serious.

[MovieMogul]

@Starving_Artist

It’s true that conservatives are less fractious than our liberal counterparts, but I attribute that to our having a pre-established sense of right and wrong and tendency to ask ourselves, when pondering something we want to do, “I want to do this, is it right?”, whereas liberals, who tend to define right and wrong by what they personally want, will say, “I want this, therefore it’s right”. And of course, everyone wants different things, and that’s why IMO you guys are so fractious and disorganized – everyone wants different things.

:snort: I would argue it’s just as easy to say that conservatives are less fractious because, when pondering something they want to do, they tend to ask themselves “Will this make me richer or poorer?”, while liberals, who actually see that Right and Wrong are not always Black and White are fractious and disorganized because they actually might disagree on what Right and Wrong is. Conservatives aren’t distracted by these inconvenient grey areas when they’re simply thinking with their pocketbooks.

See, how did you like that? Just as logically sound and conveniently reductive as your absurd assertion.

[Squink]

@VinylTurnip

Would be the most delicious example of satire I’ve seen in a very long time, were it not for the sinking suspicion that you might be serious.

I’m thinking that SA might be one of those investment banker Republicans, the ones whose moral fibre forms the basis of trust upon which our economy hinges.

[Starving_Artist]

@ArchiveGuy

:snort: I would argue it’s just as easy to say that conservatives are less fractious because, when pondering something they want to do, they tend to ask themselves "Will this make me richer or poorer?

Two things: One, you seem to have bought hook, line and sinker into this meme that conservatives are all rich and that everything conservative presidents and congressment do is for the benefit of the rich and to make them even richer.

Well, you might want to stop and ponder the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are not rich, and yet approximately fifty percent of them still hew to conservative principles philosophically. Perhaps you could explain to me why so many conservatives hold those principles and vote for people who are only going to kowtow to the benefit of 2% of them?

And second, what the hell is wrong with trying to make more money? When people earn money they can do things like, oh, I don’t know…pay for health care, send their kids to college, keep things fixed and maintained, and live life in such a way that problems which would otherwise be very difficult to impossible to overcome become mere annoyances.

I’d a hell of a lot rather grow up in a nice house with plenty of clothes and food and a nice car under parents who have all their bases covered in terms of health care and insurance and the freedom from stress that results when you don’t have enough money to get by till payday already and your car suddenly needs $400 worth of repair and you don’t have it and nobody you know does either, and most people who are trying to earn good incomes are seeking to provide their families with that kind of life.

It’s just plain stupid to denigrate people for wanting to earn a good income, and the only people in my experience who do are people who favor government taking it away from those who do and giving it to those who don’t. Either that, or they favor creating a society where everyone lives lives of equal deprivation, so that no one has any more than anyone else…which is really the main liberal bugaboo to begin with, and for which condemning the “rich” is just a handy means to an end.

[SteveG1]

So when is Rush going to get off the dime and put his money where his mouth is?
When is he going to run for office? I mean come on. He is so brilliant, he has so many great ideas, he knows exactly how to fix everything. He is doing the country a great disservice by not running.

Or is it easier to sit back and let other people wrestle with the problems while you yourself do nothing, and then throw rocks at them?
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Put up, or shut up.

[Crocodiles_And_Boulevards]

@Starving_Artist

Two things: One, you seem to have bought hook, line and sinker into this meme that conservatives are all rich and that everything conservative presidents and congressment do is for the benefit of the rich and to make them even richer.

Well, you might want to stop and ponder the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are not rich, and yet approximately fifty percent of them still hew to conservative principles philosophically. Perhaps you could explain to me why so many conservatives hold those principles and vote for people who are only going to kowtow to the benefit of 2% of them?

And second, what the hell is wrong with trying to make more money? When people earn money they can do things like, oh, I don’t know…pay for health care, send their kids to college, keep things fixed and maintained, and live life in such a way that problems which would otherwise be very difficult to impossible to overcome become mere annoyances.

I’d a hell of a lot rather grow up in a nice house with plenty of clothes and food and a nice car under parents who have all their bases covered in terms of health care and insurance and the freedom from stress that results when you don’t have enough money to get by till payday already and your car suddenly needs $400 worth of repair and you don’t have it and nobody you know does either, and most people who are trying to earn good incomes are seeking to provide their families with that kind of life.

It’s just plain stupid to denigrate people for wanting to earn a good income, and the only people in my experience who do are people who favor government taking it away from those who do and giving it to those who don’t. Either that, or they favor creating a society where everyone lives lives of equal deprivation, so that no one has any more than anyone else…which is really the main liberal bugaboo to begin with, and for which condemning the “rich” is just a handy means to an end.

SA, I’m interested in hearing how you justify the above argument when faced with evidence that Republican administrations have historically overseen periods of greater enrichment of the rich and worse income growth for middle class and poor families. Essentially, if Republicans are the party of the little guy, then why the increase in wealth gaps during Republican rule and why the constant pushes for top-down (starting at the rich as the primary focus of their policies) economic benefits?

[elucidator]

Because the “little guy” isn’t equipped for this sort of high level economic thinking. For that, you need a team of sober, clear-eyed professionals, like, oh, Lehman Bros., AIG, that sort of mature judgment. The working man should place his trust in the hands of those whom God, in His wisdom, has assigned to be custodians of the nations wealth.*

*Paraphrase of an actual quote from the late nineteenth century, which I have been searching for the source of. An obscure person, otherwise unknown, but if anybody recognizes it, I would love to have the attribution…Carry on…

[Starving_Artist]

@Crocodiles_And_Boulevards

SA, I’m interested in hearing how you justify the above argument when faced with evidence that Republican administrations have historically overseen periods of greater enrichment of the rich and worse income growth for middle class and poor families. Essentially, if Republicans are the party of the little guy, then why the increase in wealth gaps during Republican rule and why the constant pushes for top-down (starting at the rich as the primary focus of their policies) economic benefits?

I have to leave and this will admittedly be a hurried answer, but I’d say part of the reason is that since Republican philosophy tends to favor rewarding people who do strive to earn good incomes, it only makes sense that they would be the ones who would benefit from the practice of that philosophy.

And secondarily, it’s because Democrats keep downwardly defining the boundaries of low and middle class incomes.

[CannyDan]

@elucidator

Because the “little guy” isn’t equipped for this sort of high level economic thinking. For that, you need a team of sober, clear-eyed professionals, like, oh, Lehman Bros., AIG, that sort of mature judgment. The working man should place his trust in the hands of those whom God, in His wisdom, has assigned to be custodians of the nations wealth.*<snip>

And stay the hell away from those evil institutions of higher learning, which exist only to seduce the “little guy” away from the paths of true belief…

[MovieMogul]

@Starving_Artist

Two things: One, you seem to have bought hook, line and sinker into this meme that conservatives are all rich and that everything conservative presidents and congressment do is for the benefit of the rich and to make them even richer.

No more than you’ve bought into the meme that liberals are just If It Feels Good Do It narcissists and moral relativists.

I never said I believed what I posted. I just said that it was as full of shit as what you were espousing.

[Fish]

So what you’re saying is that the liberal media works in spite of the free market, but magically the convervative media works because of the free market?

Gotcha.

[VinylTurnip]

It helps if you assume that whenever you discover something irrational in SA’s sepia-toned, Kinkadean worldview, a wizard did it.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

@tagos

The mumbo-jumbo of ideologies mean nothing. It’s what their adherents do that matters.

I know this thread is not about Islam, but since you brought it up, it’s nice to see you acknowledge that since the overwhelming majority of Muslims are nonviolent, Islam is a nonviolent religion.

[Equipoise]

@Starving_Artist

And second, what the hell is wrong with trying to make more money?

I for one have nothing against rich people. It’s very possible to be wealthy and still have a brain, a heart, and a conscience. Look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Warren Buffet, Steven Spielberg, Teresa Heinz Kerry, many many more. The difference seems to me to be that rich Republicans hate giving a penny of their money to anyone else and just want to make more and more and more, while Democrats want to use their money to help others. Not that there aren’t Republican philanthropists, there certainly are, especially if there are tax breaks associated with charity, but my observations tell me that rich Republicans are more likely to have an attitude of “I got mine, I want more, fuck you” while rich Democrats tend to have an attitude of “I got mine, how much more do I need, anyway, so let me help those who aren’t so fortunate.”

If I’m worth a billion dollars, I’m not going to have a hissy fit over having to pay more taxes than someone who has to work two jobs to keep food on the table and a roof over his kids’ head, but then, I’m not a cheapskate Republican.

[Voyager]

@Starving_Artist

I have to leave and this will admittedly be a hurried answer, but I’d say part of the reason is that since Republican philosophy tends to favor rewarding people who do strive to earn good incomes, it only makes sense that they would be the ones who would benefit from the practice of that philosophy.

And secondarily, it’s because Democrats keep downwardly defining the boundaries of low and middle class incomes.

Actually, the data shows that even the rich do worse on average in Republican administrations. They do better compared to the lower classes, but worse on an absolute basis.

Joe the Plumber is a perfect example of this point. Here is a guy who would do better under what Obama proposed, but had this fantasy about being rich which made him support the Republicans.

[elucidator]

http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=d22fe4c9-6f8c-4c0d-93af-aed79ad3b467

From, of all people, David Frum, world class asshole and rightard…

…On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined…

[Squink]

Weasel Ron Paul Also Scared To Disagree With Wingnut Princess Rush Limbaugh

[Equipoise]

@elucidator

http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=d22fe4c9-6f8c-4c0d-93af-aed79ad3b467

From, of all people, David Frum, world class asshole and rightard…

Uh oh, he’s gonna be branded a RINO now.

In other, quite amusing, news, Rushbo has challeneged President Obama to a duel!

Ok, not quite a duel, but if President Obama takes him up on it, Rush will certainly be the one left wounded and bleeding, while Obama won’t even break a sweat.

Limbaugh Challenges Obama To A Debate

An excerpt from Rush’s radio transcript:

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn’t President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it’s on the record. They’re claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let’s have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program – without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards – to debate me on the issues. Let’s talk about free markets versus government control. Let’s talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let’s talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let’s talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let’s talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let’s talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let’s talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let’s talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let’s talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let’s talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let’s talk about your stock market. By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

President Obama is probably way too busy to bat at gnats, but I for one would LOVE to see this happen. It would probably be better with a moderator though. A good one, who would make sure that Rush lets President Obama answer the questions. It should be live on television too.