The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Rush to Judgment

January 22, 2009 | 56 Comments

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was asked by a major print organization to offer 400 words on his hope for the Obama presidency. His reaction:

I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, okay I’ll send you a response but I don’t need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails.

Limbaugh further explained, “I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.” MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews, however, found this lack of support unacceptable and unprecedented:

[D]oes Rush Limbaugh hate this country? Wait till you hear what he said about the new president. He wants him to fail. What an amazing . . . I’ve never heard anybody say they wanted a new president to fail. Usually you want the new president to succeed and then later on you argue the politics of what he or she does. But to want them to fail at the outset? What’s that about?

Matthews may be confusing a presidency with a bachelor party. At a bachelor party, the participants may get drunk and give the groom their unqualified support in whatever he want to do, even if it’s a naked rampage through town. And later on — once sober and if they remember — they might argue the “politics” (i.e. propriety) of what was done.

With a presidency, however, the politics of what’s done usually gets discussed up front. The policies the President places on the table form the basis for decision on whether one wishes that he or she succeeds in carrying them out. One doesn’t just cheerlead without paying attention to the laws that are being proposed, and then read and evaluate them only after they’re enacted. It’s surprising that Matthews, with his prior Congressional experience, doesn’t understand this.

There is one sense in which Matthews’ opinion might make sense. For example, one might hope that President fails in reviving the economy, because that would make him popular and give him leverage to enact various social policies with which one disagrees. But as Limbaugh makes clear, he wasn’t rooting against the success of the economy, but merely against the success of policies which he believes will further hurt the economy.

Comments

56 Responses to “Rush to Judgment”

  1. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 12:56 pm

    I think a better option would be to hope Obama’s doomed finanical policies are proved to be as bad as others know they are.

    Or, even better, that he has people around him who drum into his head how ill-conceived they are before he gets a chance to enact them.

    Hoping for failure is understandable, but Obama’s failure is going to come at a very high price. We’re picking up the tab for enough failure right now, thank you very much.

  2. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

    It would be fun to try and infer the contents of the Bible based solely on the words and actions of Christians.

    So far I come up with

    “Police the Vaginas. Wish hateful shit on anyone in your way. God Out.”

  3. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

    But wishing policies you believe will cause harm to be shown as such — shown as such before they are enacted — is not “wishing hateful shit on anyone in your way”.

    And if they are enacted, hoping they’ll be proven disastrous before they cause too much harm is also not unChristian.

    It would be wrong to hope Obama gets hit by a bus, or gets sucked into a scandal, but it’s not wrong to hope policies you believe are going to cause a great deal of harm and cost the people of this country billions are shown up as such.

  4. Erin
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

    Right on, Rush. As always, sticking to his guns, holding to the heart of the matter. God help those who just don’t get it. They would rather he were a liar, just like everyone else.

  5. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

    Wouldn’t many innocents – fellow countrymen be hurt if the policies fail?

    This is narcissism. “If my name isn’t on the solution, burn, baby, burn.”

  6. Erin
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    Jane, you just don’t get it.

  7. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

    I guess we can add another commandment by inference. “If the Christian name isn’t on it, pray it fails. God out.”

  8. Craig
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

    I don’t know what to say about this. I actually agree with Limbaugh. I don’t like Obama’s policies and what he wants to enact, but I still support him as president…is that a contradiction? Is it possible to want someone to fail at enacting their policies but support them?

  9. Erin
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

    Craig, I think intellectually it is a contradiction. However, I think the sentiment comes from a noble place.

  10. jolly atheist
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

    I hear US policies have been already framed to guide US at least 50 years henceforth – that is to say they won’t change much with this or that president. So, they say, people should not expect much of a difference in policy -they might mean foreign policy though – between Bush and Obama. I may be mistaken!?

  11. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

    “Innocents” (and not-so-innocents) will get hurt either way, but long-term effects of Obama’s exhorbitantly expensive, ineffective policies will be far greater than any damage incurred while we re-adjust to more conservative economical policies.

  12. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

    “Wouldn’t many innocents – fellow countrymen be hurt if the policies fail?”

    I don’t think so, Jane. Many, many more innocents will be harmed if he succeeds with his policies.

    Socialism is hard to undo. For it to succeed, we have to give the government broad powers over every area of our lives that it touches. I am not willing to give up my freedoms and I don’t think most people are willing to allow the government to intrude in our lives the way it must, for most socialist policies to succeed.

    Health care is an obvious example. Let the government take it over and it will tell you that you cannot smoke, or overeat or drink alcohol. Of course, we shouldn’t do those things now but we cannot currently be refused care, or fined, or have our children taken away, if we do.

    Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism” is quite interesting on the subject of socialism’s reach into our lives. Right now– when I have time, I am trying to follow up on some of his more interesting bibliographical references. As someone in education, I have long known that Dewey and the 19th/early 20th century school movement was aimed at inculcating certain values that would make good, obedient citizens and civilize the immigrants that had been pouring into the US but I was not aware of just how radically the movers and shakers of that era were looking to have the state shape its citizenry.

    I guess we aren’t the first to find democracy maddeningly messy.

  13. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

    The problem you guys face is that it’s always the money and sheeple versus the people – that is, there aren’t enough monied and their aren’t enough sheeple to make an entire party independent of each other.

    So, ultimately you will get another George and I don’t think any of us would describe his financial policies as conservative.

    It’s too bad, because I think many people would vote for true Libertarian. But I still don’t hope for failure – even for Chimpy….and remember failed financial policies mean more abortions.

  14. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

    Still waiting for that admission, Lily. Still can’t manage to do the Christian thing and admit you’re wrong and apologize for your actions?

    I know you’re sorry you got called on what you did, but that’s not the same thing.

    Come on, Sister Super Christian — where’s the admission and where’s the apology?

  15. Skeptimal
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:46 pm

    Christian after Christian (except those who aren’t *real* Christians) defends Rush Limbaugh as he says he hopes Obama’s policies fail.

    Let’s hearken back to 2003 and 2004, when anyone who questioned the policies of the miserable failure was accused of “hating America.” Or “siding with the terrorists.” Or “providing aid and comfort to the enemy.”

    I personally don’t care what Limbaugh says, because even *he* probably doesn’t believe most of what comes out of that mouth. I also value honest and rigorous dissent, regardless of whether I agree with it. But those of you who supported the miserable failure (hereafter known as the “mf”) should be choking on your pretzels over your own hypocrisy.

  16. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

    Nobody who actually knows what GW has done over the last 8 years would call him a miserable failure. There is much to criticize him for but that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

  17. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

    For this group at least, membership has long since come to supersede the issues that originally brought them together. If they could blame Obama for an increase in abortions, they would Rush forward to perform them themselves.

  18. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

    Huh? Could you translate that last remark Jane?

  19. Melissa
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

    Nice blog RT. I have the same hope, that Obama won’t succeed in making dangerous agendas a reality. I know we’ll all be praying that the whole idea of “change” will come true – change of heart that is. God worked a miracle in you; He can surely work one in Obama. ;) Anything is possible!! “No one is beyond redemption.”

  20. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 2:48 pm

    Wow, Lily, just can’t do it. Aren’t woman or Christian or honest enough.

    You made a huge error and refused to correct it several times over now.

    What a deceitful, dishonest person you are.

    Your word is worthless. You have no credibility as a Christian until you do the right thing.

  21. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

    There are two components to long term group membership that must be satisfied in order to retain members – the pleasure of companionship and the pride of association.

    When those get out of whack, the group is vulnerable to dysfunction (like, for instance, an abandonment of the original goals).

    In this case the group is Pro-Choice Christians. The original goal is the elimination of abortion. The public’s enthusiasm for the president marks a loss of associative pride for the group, and so it is wobbling.

    Low and behold we have group member advocating a situation that will result in more abortions “for the greater good.”

    I beleive that if the members of the group could make Obama fail in the public’s eyes by doing so, they would perform abortions themselves.

  22. 1+2=3
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

    Lily absolutely would perform an abortion herself if she thought she could “win” an internet argument.

    She refuses to admit culpability and offer amends, why not murder babies, too?

    She’s a fraud.

    A deceitful, dishonest, hypocritical fraud.

  23. the Rosy Gardener
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:21 pm

    As far as the original post, I think Limbaugh just put more brashly what every member of the opposition thinks when the opponent wins. Did Planned Parenthood members hope Bush would succeed? Of course not. They wanted him to fail in restricting abortions and implementing the Mexico City policy.

    I hope that Obama will change his mind on a lot of things, from the ridiculous idea that taxing companies will help the little guy (the head honchos are going to preserve their profits by laying people off or moving overseas, charging higher prices, etc.) to his support for FOCA, which will increase the numbers from the already stunningly high 4000 dead babies and 4000 wounded mothers a day. I guess that means I hope his other ideas fail. I’m not wishing him personal harm, I’m not hoping anything evil befalls him. So the problem is?

    -Rosy

  24. Lily
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

    Jane, now you have left reality completely behind. The American people do not support unlimited abortion and that is by a huge majority. Many are uneasy but willing to allow 1st trimester abortions. Christina probably has exact stats at her finger tips but if she doesn’t see this and you want proof, I can track the stats down for you.

    Obama’s popularity has precious little to do with his stance on abortion. People are positively queasy when faced with his “let them die, if they emerge alive. It is too big a burden on the abortionist to provide medical care.”

    Or, shorter Obama: Every woman is entitled to a dead baby.”

    You are getting ugly when you claim we would perform abortions, if we thought it would cause Obama to fail. Or for any other reason. Can you really not understand that we think life at all stages needs to be protected? I don’t ask if you can accept that; obviously you don’t. But can you really not understand that many millions of us do feel that way? Can you not intuit, if only dimly, why we feel that way?

  25. Tom Gilson
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

    Have there been no Democrats who have hoped the war in Iraq would fail, just to embarrass Bush?

  26. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

    I’m sure there were. There was a guy that rammed another driver going 100 mph today because Jesus told him to. What is your point Tom?

  27. Joanne
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

    “At a bachelor party, the participants may get drunk and give the groom their unqualified support in whatever he want to do,”

    Actually, there are some decent guys out there who don’t support whatever the groom wants to do, if it lacks integrity. Just sayin.’

  28. 2+2=...4!
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:46 pm

    I hope he succeeds – that is, I hope he is a good President. He is our President and is owed that well-wish by virtue of his office. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s likely he will be a good President, and I don’t intend to sit around waiting for him to start being one. I’m not hoping he’ll fail, but I’m not caving either.

    That’s simplistic, but I’m running on 1.5 hours of sleep. I claim entitlement.

  29. Margaret Catherine
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 9:47 pm

    Oh, brother. That was me…1.5 hours sleep, like I said. Good night!

  30. Elizabeth Esther
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 10:29 pm

    RT: The saddest part of all this was that it sealed Roe v. Wade. Legalized, federally subsidized abortion is here to stay. O will appoint the next Supreme Court Justices and possibly roll back any abortion limits. I don’t much care whether markets rise or fall.

    I weep for the babies.

    However, I am hopeful. If O’s policies succeed, more women will have access to affordable medical & childcare which may prevent them from choosing abortion.

    In that regard I hope President Obama is successful.

  31. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 11:37 am

    Come on you wackos. Cheer up. Here’s a funny cartoon of atheist hell.

  32. Lily
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 12:37 pm

    Yeah, that was pretty funny. The only thing missing are the plates of cold brussel sprouts.

    Since I think we may all be suffering Obama overload at the moment, I was wondering if there is a story behind your handle, which cracks me up everytime I see it. I feel reasonably certain that you are not unspeakably violent. If there is a story, do you mind sharing it?

  33. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 12:56 pm

    It’s stolen from Black Adder.

    In the last episode of the first season the main character decides the only way he will inherit the throne is by collecting a band of the most notorious villains to off his family. The worst among them is “Unspeakably Violent Jack, the bull-buggering beast-killer of no-fixed-abode.”

    I don’t want to say anymore, in case you rent it, but it’s very funny.

  34. Brennon
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

    I am amazed at how often one man can be right. Go Rush!

  35. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

    Brennon, I want you to know that the brave front you are presenting after the destruction of the death star is to be commended.

  36. Bowing down to FSM
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

    I can understand people having doubts that President Obama’s policies can do good for this country. I myself am a bit skeptical that ANYONE can fix ANYTHING at this point. But to HOPE for failure??? Mr. Limbaugh is an angry, evil man, and a sore loser to boot. If this administration fails, the American economy will die a slow death. Many of us will lose our jobs and our homes if we haven’t already. Our weakened state will leave us susceptible to attacks from numerous enemies. The reality is that these things may happen, but why would anyone WISH for them? Basically, what Rush is saying is that he wishes MISERY on the people of America. That man disgusts me. He was only slightly less of a douchenozzle when he was hooked on painkillers.

  37. lily
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

    Rush stated very clearly, at least as described in this post, that he hoped Obama’s policies would fail– his promises to do things that we can comfortably predict are going to be a disaster. Obama has made his positions clear and a lot of us think they are a disaster. Ergo, we hope he will fail to carry out his destructive programs and ideas.

  38. Kelly Clark
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

    If this administration fails, the American economy will die a slow death.

    This administration has already failed. Today, for example, he sentenced unborn children in developing countries to death.

    Go ahead, though, and worry about The Economy.

  39. Joanne
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

    “This administration has already failed. Today, for example, he sentenced unborn children in developing countries to death.”

    You go, Kelly! :) Nice seeing you here!

  40. skeptimal
    January 24th, 2009 @ 8:00 am

    “Basically, what Rush is saying is that he wishes MISERY on the people of America.”

    It’s disappointing that there are so many people who still follow this man. If a moderate had done the things he’s done: kiting drug prescriptions, slandering public figures, making a living off of half-truths and lies, he’d be out of business. It only proves the moral relativism that is rampant in the conservative movement.

  41. Lily
    January 24th, 2009 @ 8:41 am

    Utter nonsense, Skeptimal. You want to talk slander? Who could possibly surpass Kos, Huffpo and all the fine mainstream media in slandering Palin, Bush, et al? What a risible and thoughtless thing to write!

    Disagreement with socialist wackos and their “policies” is patriotic. It is not “half-truths” and lies. You should be ashamed to write such nonsense.

  42. skeptimal
    January 24th, 2009 @ 9:09 am

    “Disagreement with socialist wackos and their “policies” is patriotic.”

    The only thing that Limbaugh has is name-calling, ridicule, and half truths. He obviously has you convinced, since you’re referring to anyone who disagrees with Limbaugh as a socialist. In addition to his hatred for liberals, Limbaugh has also expressed utter contempt for feminists, moderates, scientists, and people who treat any of these groups with American respect. You should be ashamed of defending his antics.

  43. Lily
    January 24th, 2009 @ 9:12 am

    You are very long on accusations and very short on specifics. Got any?

  44. Skeptimal
    January 24th, 2009 @ 9:53 am

    Lily, I just gave you some. I have myself heard Limbaugh say that moderates are worse than liberals because they don’t stand for anything. I’ve heard him say “what is science, any way,” and go on to talk about scientists as just one more branch of the “liberal elite.” If you haven’t heard his attitude toward feminists, then you’ve never listened to his show.

    The half-truths and slander are non-stop. The only reason he hasn’t been sued out of existence is that the fairness doctrine was killed by Reagan, so anything said about any public figure is defensible in this day and age.

  45. Lily
    January 24th, 2009 @ 10:11 am

    Skeptimal: These are not half-truths or lies. They are opinions and ones with which I can sympathize, even if I don’t totally accept them. Honestly, what is it with “liberals” that they can’t even *imagine,* must less accept, that there are other points of view in the world and that those points of view might have something of value to them?

    Name one *lie*. Just one. Keep in mind that lie = demonstrably false (and the peron who “lies” knows that what he has said is demonstrably false.)

  46. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 24th, 2009 @ 11:28 am

    Now that everyone’s relaxed into the idea that adult women own their own bodies just like adult men, let’s talk about the Pope’s new affection for Holocaust deniers.

    What is up?

  47. Lily
    January 24th, 2009 @ 11:35 am

    Listening to the media on religious matters causes a 10% drop in brain cells. Fair warning.

  48. UnspeakablyViolentJane
    January 24th, 2009 @ 11:45 am

    Is a Catholic required to defend any papal acts? That is to say, if Ratzinger starting channeling the Pope’s of Magellan’s era – with orgies, and mistresses and appointing his children to positions of power – what recourse would the congregation have?

  49. Skeptimal
    January 24th, 2009 @ 11:47 am

    “Name one *lie*. Just one. Keep in mind that lie = demonstrably false (and the peron who “lies” knows that what he has said is demonstrably false.)”

    Limbaugh has repeatedly lied that Obama somehow supports infanticide. (Whether you see abortion as infanticide or not does not change the English language.)

    He has said that women were doing quite well in this country until feminism came along. (They couldn’t vote or in some cases own property).

    Limbaugh said that it has never been proven that nicotine is addictive.

    When Limbaugh was cooperating with the slander against John Kerry’s war record, he actually accused the Clintons of leaking the anti-Kerry propaganda.

    Limbaugh also said there was not one shred of black blood in Barack Obama. He said, for some strange reason, that Obama was Arab.

    Limbaugh has said that the new administration plans to steal your 401(k) and put it in some kind of Robin Hood trust fund for the poor.

    He accused Michael J. Fox of faking the severity of his MS in an interview in which he advocated for embryonic stem cell research.

    Now aside from these kind of flat-out lies and unfounded accusations, there is the daily name-calling and intentional distortion. I’m not going to drag this out. If you really want to examine Limbaugh’s veracity, spend a little time on sites critical of Limbaugh. I’m not saying that I think those sites are entirely fair either, but there is ample evidence that Limbaugh will say whatever it takes to fire up his listeners, true or not.

    If, after critically examining his record, you can still say that you’re proud to support this man, then you’re either a liar yourself or you’re exercising willful ignorance.

  50. Lily
    January 24th, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

    Jane: A Pope can be excommunicated and removed from office just like priests and bishops can be. Actually these matters are just about the first thing covered by the Code of Canon Law (see Canon 192ff).

    Skeptimal: None of the things you have quoted as lies are lies. Obama does support infanticide. He actively worked against making the withholding of medical care from a full term baby that somehow makes it out of the womb during an abortion illegal. He succeeded. These babies are allowed to die of neglect. That is infanticide.

    John Kerry’s war record was not slandered. Michael J Fox admitted that he hadn’t taken his meds in order to appear as sick as possible and thus have a much more powerful emotional appeal. One of Obama’s economic advisors has advocated confiscating 401ks in return for some sort of fixed gov’t stipend. That was briefly reported, though not followed up on that I aware of. Maybe someone here knows more.

    I can’t go through your entire list but there isn’t a single lie in it. Try again.

    Oh– and just to forestall the usual accusation– I have never heard his radio show. Ever. 15 or so years ago, I used to occasionally see his tv show, as I got ready to go to work in the morning. He was hilarious, opinionated, and exceedingly fun to watch. I occasionally see him interviewed and I occasionally read transcripts when a blogger or news story links to something he has said.

    In other words, please don’t try to cast me in the role of a particular fan of his. The real point is that his opinions appear to be always well supported by reality. That doesn’t mean necessarily that they are always completely correct. But how the left squeals when criticized!

    The left in this country just doesn’t value free speech. When they are subjected to scrutiny and criticism, it is amazing how quick they are to try and stifle it. Now, of course, they are going to try to bring back the “Fairness doctrine”. Yikes! I wonder how quickly the left will try to criminalize dissent?

  51. Brian Walden
    January 24th, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

    Jane, what new affection for holocaust deniers? The Pope removed the the excommunications stemming from the illicit SSPX ordinations in 1988. The act that incurred the excommunications has nothing to do with Bishop Williamson being a moonbat (to be fair to both sides Cardinal Mahony is also a moonbat, but not a holocaust denying moonbat). Being a moonbat in general or a holocaust denier in specific does not merit an excommunication by the act itself. If you think Bishop Williamson should be excommunicated for his comments you’ll need to find a canonical case against him.

    Catholics are not required to defend every act of the Pope. Didn’t Dante put a few popes in hell in the Inferno? My feelings about the SSPX situation are rather ambivalent – I want to see them back in full communion with the church but at the same time I personally would have liked to see a public admittance that the ordinations were wrong. In this case I’m going to trust in Benedict’s wisdom. The excommunications were a hindrance to dialog, the SSPX is still suspended in all of their priestly fuctions – so I guess the Pope really hasn’t given up much but has gained a lot of trust from the SSPX.

  52. Pikemann Urge
    January 24th, 2009 @ 7:12 pm

    Skeptimal, Limbaugh sure is a creep, but Lily has taken you up on your challenge with regards to outright lying. Got a response?

    To say someone is full of shit is fair; to say that they’re a liar without solid evidence isn’t, no matter who the person is.

  53. skeptimal
    January 25th, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

    “Skeptimal, Limbaugh sure is a creep, but Lily has taken you up on your challenge with regards to outright lying. Got a response?”

    I have responded, and I stand by my last post.

    “Obama does support infanticide. He actively worked against making the withholding of medical care from a full term baby that somehow makes it out of the womb during an abortion illegal.”

    As I predicted, you’re mis-stating what happened and redefining the word “infanticide.” Even were I to allow you to do so and concede this point (which I don’t), your other responses are non-sensical.

    John Kerry’s war record was not slandered.”

    You keep dreaming on that one, but that wasn’t my point. He accused Clinton of launching the smear campaign, knowing damned well it was his friends in the Republican Party. Regarding Kerry, none of those accusations were supported by evidence, and everyone involved in the accusations had a political motive for making them.

    “Michael J Fox admitted that he hadn’t taken his meds in order to appear as sick as possible and thus have a much more powerful emotional appeal.”

    Now you’re just making things up, and the evidence is in your own mis-statement. Fox’s condition causes his muscles to stiffen up, limiting his mobility and making it difficult for him to move. The medication allows him to move but causes tremors. He never “admitted” anything, because he didn’t do anything to make his condition appear worse. Had he not taken his meds, he would have appeared worse, and he has spoken about this numerous times on the web with far more grace and decency than Limbaugh has shown on any subject since he first found a gullible audience.

    “One of Obama’s economic advisors has advocated confiscating 401ks in return for some sort of fixed gov’t stipend.”

    I believe your misstating that suggestion, but even if you’re accurate, one advisor suggesting an idea does not equate to what Limbaugh has said, which is that Obama is going to do this. Unlike Limbaugh, Obama actually listens to people who disagree with him, so he is going to get a lot of suggestions that don’t become policy.

    “I can’t go through your entire list but there isn’t a single lie in it. Try again.”

    I have to assume you’re either joking or you think we’re all stupid. Your statement suggests you honestly believe the following ludicrous things:

    *that women were better off without the right to vote or own property

    *that it has never been scientifically proven that nicotine is addictive

    *and that Obama is an Arab without a drop of black blood in him.

    It would appear that you have chosen willful ignorance, and that is not an accusation I make lightly. Regarding your not being a “fan” of Limbaugh’s, if you’ve never heard his show, perhaps you should have done so before accusing everyone he has attacked of being socialists.

  54. Lily
    January 25th, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

    Women not being better off=opinion. One that I largely share, especially since I have never heard him refer to anything but the 3rd wave– which is to say the 60s and 70s variety. Lots of women would agree.

    Nicotine not addictive? I am highly skeptical but he is not the first to claim that. He is entitled to hold an ignorant opinion.

    Obama is a pure socialist who appears to be perfectly prepared to confiscate and redistribute. I have no problem with Limbaugh alerting people to the danger he and his “fiscal” ideas and policies pose.

    Obama not having a drop of black blood in him is ridiculous on its surface. I would need to know the context. I do know that there was a point in which Obama was trying to pretend he was from the ‘hood and that was widely ridiculed in many circles. Is that what Limbaugh was alluding to?

    Willful ignorance is an accusation that lots of lefties make lightly. You have not refuted anything– you have raised a couple legitimate questions. That just isn’t the same thing.

  55. Pikemann Urge
    January 25th, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

    Skeptimal, thank you for clarifiying.

    WRT nicotine, Lily, I haven’t yet heard of any dissent on that issue but if it isn’t nicotine that makes smoking addictive, then what is?

  56. Lily
    January 25th, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

    Don’t ask me about nicotine being non-addictive! I haven’t the faintest idea how or why anyone would think or claim that. I do know a few people who smoke rarely (i.e a couple of times a month) who don’t seem to need to at all. They are just being sociable. I would never dare– I stopped smoking 20 years ago and I still remember the agony.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links