Rush Limbaugh – Al Franken Was Exactly Right!

Zachary, I have almost never seen a conservative back up their assertions with logic and fact. I think the last time I saw it was Christopher Hitchens… before that it was a long time ago, and William F. Buckley Jr.

Pinheads like Limbaugh should aspire to be half as intelligent and cogent as he was!

lol I wouldn’t be quoting anything Al Franken says fella…

Zachary, why not, his opinions on things are certainly as valid as anyone’s. At least he gives reasons as to his assertions, that are based on logic.

Have you ever noticed how Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and other righties begin with a faulty premise, and work from there?

Marvin Kalb, a professor of O’Reilly’s, slapped him down pretty hard for that when O’Reilly appeared on the Kalb Report on PBS a couple of weeks ago.

I actually listen to Limbaugh’s show on occasion, and his fundamental premises as I understand them are that people should have maximum freedom, which correspondingly requires that the government have minimal (read, specifically enumerated) powers. His delivery is laced with entertainment and as such does not appeal to all, but his philosophy is hardly based on faulty premises. With regard to President Obama’s policy change, the article distorts Limbaugh’s position. What Limbaugh was referring to as “not American” was not the change in disclosure policy as such. He was referring to the Congressional Democratic leadership’s attempts to criminalize policy differences. You say Limbaugh is an idiot because he disagrees with you. I think your argument would be helped by first being accurate, and second by being more mature. Calling people names is quite childish. Finally, I do find your selective memory with regard to “scandals” interesting. You jump from Watergate (indeed a crime), to Iran Contra (a policy dispute that could possibly have been a crime, but the law broken was probably unconstitutional), to the Bush Administration. You completely miss the actual crimes, conflicts of interest and odd occurrences of the Clinton years. I was hoping that Obama’s victory would lay to rest the irrational hatred and intolerance of the left. Seems my hopes are only that.

Paul,
I say Limbaugh is an idiot because he is one. BTW, why is he not in jail for his drug problems? I can think of many who, given the same circumstances, would be speaking from the 8×10 place decided upon by his state of residence.

I put it to you that what you saw in the video was NOT in any way doctored, therefore how could I be wrong?

As for my maturity, Limbaugh is hardly the beacon of scholarly behavior.

What crimes are you referring to with regard to Clinton? He lied to the questioners about something that shouldn’t have been asked in the first place. (He was morally wrong, but in no way legally accountable for anything.) Odd occurrences are just that.

One need only watch television to see the many problems of the Bush years. The power grab of those years is something that should have been handled immediately, but was postponed because we were/are ‘at war’. The war itself is something that any sane person should see as wrong, unnecessary, and ill advised. One can easily argue that the country, and now the world, would not be in the situation it is in, had the war never happened.

Still, the only thing I remain puzzled about is how so many people can be persuaded to be Republican, when the very tenets of that party are against their best interests. (as I’ve said many times before, it is NOT the party of Lincoln - it simply has the same name.)

Irrational hatred and intolerance? Kettle= black, pot=???

Intolerance? I have no intolerance for anything but stupidity - of that I have no tolerance whatsoever.

As far as name calling, I merely agreed with the assessments of Al Franken.

I note how you failed to defend Bush and Cheney, hopefully you can see what a fool’s mission that would be.

Paul, I guess that your idea and mine of entertainment are two different things, but that is what makes a world.

I guess, now that I just wrote it, is that I also object to the style of entertainment being represented as either commentary to be taken to heart, and/or somehow newsworthy.

Paul, take a gander at this. Does this look like someone who should be listened to? (You have to wait for about 2 minutes to see the latest from Limbaugh.)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216561&title=fox-news-fear-imbalance

1) Clinton’s crime was lying under oath. He was the defendant in a sexual harassment civil law suit (brought by a private citizen), and was asked a very legitimate and necessary question by the plaintiff having to do with a pattern of predatory behavior–critical in proving harassment cases: “have you ever had sex with a coworker.” He lied under oath by saying no. When he was indicted for that perjury, he then compounded his crime by lying a second time before a grand jury. He then suborned perjury by attempting to get Ms Lewinsky to lie as well. Your are quite incorrect that this is just “morally wrong, not legal accountable”. Perjury is a very serious crime, and the questions were completely appropriate. The Senate ruled that the crimes did not rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors” and so he was not removed from office. But he was subsequently convicted and fined and disbarred (temporarily).

2) You are certainly entitled to your own political view, but your suggestion that others are “stupid” and you are, by your own admission, intolerant of “stupidity” means you are intolerant of others’ political views. This is, of course, your right, but it is intolerance of the views of others. I have found that demeaning others is a way one protects one’s self from having to consider the ideas of others’ that challenge our own orthodoxy. If you actually listen to others, I suspect you will find that what you once thought “stupid” was actually your lack of understanding of the world view and fundamental principles supporting those ideas.

3) As for the war (I presume you mean the Iraq war), many sane people think it was necessary and reasonable. I am not one of them, but reasonable people can review the same body of evidence and come to different conclusions. Generally, that is not evidence of stupidity; it is an indication of differing world views, judgments, and fundamental premises. It is not necessary to insult people just because you disagree with them. When we lessen the value of others’ beliefs, we lesson the value of our interaction with them. No good can come of that.

4) I don’t defend Bush/Cheney any more than I defend Limbaugh. We could trade barbs all night (there are plenty to go around) but I would prefer to discuss issues, not people. For the record, I have profound disagreements with the Bush Administration, but I am a Republican. I joined the party because of its adherence to the principles of limited government and maximum personal freedom. I admit the party is far from perfect in practicing those ideals, but I don’t find the Dem party much better. Frankly, I think each party has it about half right: rep’s tend to get economic liberty; dem’s tend to get personal liberty.

4) If you watch more than the snippets and soundbites, you will see that the entire context of Limbaugh’s position is as I’ve stated. The clip of the “Daily Show”, while entertaining, is not serious commentary–ironically that is your point with regard to Limbaugh, but you do not, apparently, apply that same standard to “The Daily Show.” While you may or may not agree with the statements clipped on that video, the ideas behind those statements need much more context and clarification than what is presented. You may still disagree, but by looking into these ideas with greater depth you will have given the thoughts and beliefs of others a bit more respect, and I suggest to you that you will grow as a person as a result. Snippets such as those are not intended to represent the ideas of those persons; those snippets are intended to parody those ideas. Such “news” does not make one think, it simply is designed to reinforce a world view. I worry that so much that passes for political discourse nowadays is simply that: people talking past one another, demeaning one another, and otherwise avoiding a serious discussion.

I guess my main point is, why does it seem necessary in today’s political discourse to be so nasty, intolerant, and rude? I would be glad to have an open and intelligent conversation with you about things with which we are not in agreement. As long as a conversation is respectful and intelligent, I think both people walk away from a lively debate better people. Insulting people and their beliefs is rude and poisons the social fabric which binds us. Sadly, I see that as the main instrument of information today. We don’t have to agree, but it serves no productive purpose to be harmful to one another.

Paul, my point was that Clinton should have never been asked. The Republicans have/had made great points of how President Bush should not/could not be prosecuted for things outside the scope of the presidency while in office. The same rule should have been applied to President Clinton.

I agree about trading barbs, however I disagree vehemently with the idea that anyone of intelligence, and armed with the facts, could think that the war in Iraq was prudent, or necessary. To me, that shows stupidity. That is why I never backed Hillary Clinton for president, and why I would have never voted for McCain. ( I believe that McCain, due to the shaping factors in his life sees war, in general, as inevitable, which to me is both sad and scary.)

I would have liked to see Ron Paul have a chance, but since he was marginalized by the press, and not enough people were able to see that he could have been an agent of change, I began to back John Edwards. why his message did not take off, I have no idea (before any scandal came around, his campaign had fizzled, yet I can not explain why). I hesitate to say, that I underestimated the sentiment of the nation, and also thought that a black man could become President. However, once Paul and Edwards were out, I gave my full support to President Obama (I always knew he had the right stuff, I simply doubted that enough of my countrymen saw it also)

All that to say, on many things we may not be that far apart.

That is, other than our opinion of Limbaugh. Did you not catch the statement that he wants to see President Obama fail? Does this, because of what will happen to the entire country, and by extension him, not characterize him as insane? Who but the insane wish upon themselves failure, peril, and poverty? To me, that is the very definition of insane.

You’re also correct (somewhat) about political parties. I am, a Libertarian (closest fit), but, since I live in California, the primary process precludes me from being able to vote for whomever I want, I must only choose to narrow the contestants from whatever party I identify myself with. Since there has never been more than 1 Libertarian in any race in which I have ever voted, I choose instead to declare as Democrat, knowing that, in the general election, I may vote as I wish. I could easily call myself a Democrat, for many things, but my stand on guns is outside their norms.

I see Waco as the one big failure of the Clinton administration. Koresh and his followers should have been left alone. Once any problems concerning child abuse were cleared up, that compound should have never been touched. If they wanted to have a gun on every wall, with boxes of bullets hanging from every ceiling, it was their right. Until the first crime was committed, the people should have been left alone.

As a matter of fact, since I lean the way I do, I really have no problems with gay/multiple marriage, and I firmly believe that Mormons and others who practice polygamy, once the verified ages and lack of coercion are found, should be left completely alone. (let the IRS sort the other problems out!)

Thanks for the comments.

Chris Perillo,

Is this the kind of topic that your website has fallen to?

I’ve always respected you, but when I want political talk I don’t want to hear it from a tech website. Much less from some self-proclaimed intellectual (moron) like “the oracle”. Associating yourself with the new Liberal Movement (Socialists like Al Franken) in no way makes you an intellectual, even though many college professors would like you to believe that. It only proves that you are gullible, and easily driven to one point of view, and convinced that it was your own. There’s nothing intellectual about being that gullible.

That being said… I will now stop perusing this site in the future, because I prefer not to be further distracted from my daily activities by feeling the need to correct some nut-job, who’s distorting the news while he fondles Al Franken’s coin purse.

to “the oracle”:
You’re 100% right with the Waco thing. In about 10 years you’ll be a true libertarian, after the agenda-driven liberal brainwashing has worn off from college; one who wholly believes in what is about to be taken away from you by the current administration (your very freedom).

Nancy Pelosi’s gang will destroy this country, and President Obama, as good as his intentions might be, will let her.

Where would the United States be without conservative talk show hosts? Probably Big Brother 1984 would be here already. The DNC is the most corrupt self serving political group in the history of the world. The final icing on the cake is their unholy 3 leadership, Obama, Pelosi and Reid with their court jesters, Frank, Dodds, Biden and Hillary. Obama policies will only leave “CHANGE” in my pockets. If I’m lucky!!!!

Brent, first, so sorry that your message got trapped in the spam filter. I just removed it .

Perhaps, if you could stop the ad hominem attacks, and put forth an argument, I might have something to comment on.

OK - I must reply.

Not sure why you think Franken is a socialist. Just because he hails from a state that has a few of them does not make him one, nor do I recall hearing any statements in that direction. (However, I am hardly an authority, as I don’t listen to ‘talk radio’. I am only aware of Limbaugh’s buffoonery as he is so ridiculous in most of his assertions as to get lots of advertising - everyone has to stop and look at a bozo, it is like rubbernecking on a freeway)

Somehow I think our new president is enough his own man that he won’t let anyone run roughshod over him. People who lean to the right should be thanking whomever they pray to that President Obama has, thus far, been far more responsible with the country’s dollars than ‘W’ ever was.

Thanks for the comment. By the way, Chris’ last name is spelled with an ‘i’ not an ‘e’.

Jack w. keefer - your lack of touch with reality is disturbing.