Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's one of the most idiotic statements you are ever likely to hear:
LIMBAUGH: What I'm afraid of is that what Obama did with this executive order is actually make it easier for the media to go get Bush documents. Because you know Pelosi and some of the guys over in congress are talking about war crimes trials and charges and so forth. [...]What I'm afraid of is what Obama's done here is made the gathering of the information for this kind of stuff- This is not American. This is not America. This is not what America does. We don't- This is Banana Republic kind of stuff.
Wow. Even for Limbaugh, that is off-the-scale stupid. No Rush, you have it exactly wrong. The notion of a press with an obligation to act as a watchdog on the government and expose its actions is quintessentially American - and entirely foreign to banana republics, where strongmen thugs of the kind that George W. Bush aspired to be engage in intimidation and violence against newspapers and the press.
Here are a few statements Thomas Jefferson made on the subject. In a letter to Edward Carrington:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
In a letter to John Jay:
"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."
In a letter to John Tyler:
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."
Un-American, indeed.
Politics
Comments
Rush's answer to the possibility of war crimes is to hide the evidence, not surprising.
Posted by: JED | January 27, 2009 9:24 AM
Sometimes I wonder if the National Review, Keyes, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly are part of an experiment to measure the credulity of conservatives. The results to date appear infinite.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 9:26 AM
I long for the day when Rush Limbaugh performs that final bit of service for this nation that Joe McCarthy did on May 2, 1957.
Posted by: democommie | January 27, 2009 9:33 AM
Re Michael Heath
definitive?
Posted by: SLC | January 27, 2009 9:36 AM
Ed, Im sorry, but the title of this article risks implying that Rush was not bananas at some point recently. That obviously isnt the case.
Also, I suppose that this is an appropriate time to confess that during the election, I contributed to the Al Franken campaign, solely because the mere existence of "Senator Franken" will cause Rush to have fits.
Posted by: Dave | January 27, 2009 9:40 AM
Yes, because we all know a defining feature of Banana Republics is the openness of their records. If it was anyone else, I'd suspect the quote was taken out o fcontext somehow, but not Limbaugh.
Posted by: WScott | January 27, 2009 9:50 AM
SLC - nice catch, how about:
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 9:50 AM
Limbaugh Has Gone Bananas
In other news: Pope has gone Catholic.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | January 27, 2009 10:21 AM
@Heath
Out of your list Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity are entertainers who milk their audience for all its worth. Keyes is just plain nuts. I believe O'Reilly is the only one who truly believes what he says.
Posted by: yoshi | January 27, 2009 10:26 AM
It seems that at least two posters missed the joke.
Limbaugh Has Gone Bananas
This is Banana Republic kind of stuff.
Posted by: Janine | January 27, 2009 10:27 AM
Wouldn't this make O'Reilly the crazy one, and Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity just cynical?
Posted by: Matthew | January 27, 2009 10:32 AM
Of my list, I believe O'Reilly is the one most prone to not believing the swill he pushes, by far and away, with no close second. I think O'Reilly fancies himself a media mogul who greatly desires respect from the players in this industry and believes he should achieve that respect by ratings; the fact they diss him anyways in spite of his ratings is a continuous frustration O'Reilly is unable to hide on his show.
Hannity believes what he sells because he's too stupid to think otherwise. I'm not sure about Coulter. I'm pretty convinced that Limbaugh believes only a fraction of what he pushes regarding social conservatism (though not his plutocratic pronouncements where he's a true believer). I believe it is Limbaugh's cynicism towards social conservatism that allowed him to turn so easily against Huckabee given that Huckabee is not a plutocrat but is a perfect example of social conservatism served up Rick Warren style (nice, ignorant, and nearly extreme as Dobson, Robertson and Falwell, a true wolf in sheep's clothing, though an idiot wolf).
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 10:44 AM
Someone could write an entire book about what a big fat idiot Limbaugh is...
Posted by: Hal Brankin | January 27, 2009 10:46 AM
...and that someone should be elected to Congress.
Posted by: NJ | January 27, 2009 10:56 AM
Ho hum. Business as usual. Limbaugh clearly likes the sound of his own artificially outraged voice. The others mentioned, even BillO, are not very different. They are public face of the right, the loud, awful public face.
Where are the thoughtful conservative opinions? Someone who, every time he/she opens their mouth, doesn't spew filth and dogma? I hate to say this as a lefty but we need to find and feed the intelligent right in order to reduce the effect of the burning stupid of Limbaugh & Co.
Posted by: MikeMa | January 27, 2009 10:59 AM
Idiot wolf... Hooowwooooo uh huh, uh huh, uh huh...
Struck me as funny, what can I say.
Posted by: Don | January 27, 2009 10:59 AM
In a banana republic, you punish mere troublemakers. Punishing people who are guilty is different. It's called... justice, I guess. Should some people be immune to justice? What about the "ethics of personal responsability"? Isn't it supposed to be something conservatives love?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | January 27, 2009 11:12 AM
Ummm, isn't this precisely what Limbaugh claimed he was supposed to do all during the Clinton administration? Wasn't he performing the sacred duty of the media to keep an eye on the government and make certain that they didn't get away with any shenanigans?
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 27, 2009 11:23 AM
Christophe Thill said
Yes. You see, it is the responsibility of the entirety of America that Bush 43 was elected. What Bush 43 did was not his responsibility, you see, since it was the responsibility of the voting public.
Similarly, it is not the responsibility of a CEO when his company tanks. It is the responsibility of the system or of the shareholders who lose their money.
Or to re-align with the banana line of the story, it isn't FOXNew's responsibility to report the truth, since that isn't what their audience wants. (You see, it is the audience's responsibility to desire the truth and communicate that to FOXNews.)
In other words, personal responsibility only holds when it is others' responsibilities toward your own person.
Posted by: Umlud | January 27, 2009 11:30 AM
I pretty much agree with Michael's assessment of the right-wing pundits. Hannity is really is the stupid one of the bunch, though if you include Glenn Beck in that lot, he gives Hannity a good run for the money in the brain cell deficit department.
But when I think about what drives Limbaugh, the word hedonist springs to mind. I'm sure he believes most of what he spouts off on his radio show (with the exception of his support for conservative religious causes, where I suspect he couldn't care less) but given his string of marriages (to increasingly younger women), his long-time corpulence (yeah, I know he more recently got that under control -- probably because his doctor told him he was going to die otherwise), and the circumstantial evidence surrounding that infamous trip to the Dominican Republic, he just does what enables him to pursue his self-indulgent pleasures.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, except of course the hypocrisy of his pretense of being as one with the moral majority. James Dobson is a fan but I suspect he would run a mile if he knew what Limbaugh got up to in his private life.
I still chafe at seeing the "entertainer" label bestowed on these people though because it trivializes the negative impact they have had on this country. They have been personally responsible for much of the dumbing down of the political debate in this country, not to mention the enabling of the policies of one of the worst presidential regimes in the nations history.
Posted by: tacitus | January 27, 2009 11:33 AM
tacitus:
his long-time corpulence (yeah, I know he more recently got that under control -- probably because his doctor told him he was going to die otherwise)
I'd sponsor a dozen donuts sent to the radio station every week if you think it might help...
Posted by: MikeMa | January 27, 2009 11:50 AM
I can take a lot of punishment in regards to watching/listening/reading people who I strongly oppose and find intellectually dishonest, but I can't watch Glen Beck because I've never gotten further than a few seconds watching him. To me its like starting at a white wall without blinking, I just can't do it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 12:19 PM
I'm a little less cynical in that I don't believe all those guys are spouting pure BS that they themselves don't believe. It's gotta be somewhere in the middle. Limbaugh and Hannity in particular seem like they are totally team identified. They must say anything in order to make sure their team wins. And even if what they say isn't necessarily true every now and then, it's ok because they have to lead people in the "right" direction. A little like the old phrase "lying for Jesus".
O'Reilly on the other hand strikes me as much to self important to not believe what he says. It seems like he really feels every show he does or book he write is like a service to the public. They should be thanking him for his penetrating insight. And even if he says something that later turns out to be false, I don't think he ever really changes his mind. At least not that I've seen. His position is that things must be true because he says them.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | January 27, 2009 12:27 PM
If it were a Democrat withholding the records, you know very well that the fat piece of shit would be saying, "Those are public records! The people have a right to know!" That's the beauty of being a demagogue, you don't have to trouble yourself with either facts or logical consistency.
Posted by: Raymond Minton | January 27, 2009 2:15 PM
Of course, all three are currently regarded as heretics by the True Conservatives (tm), which tells you all you need to know.
Posted by: WScott | January 27, 2009 2:50 PM
Just a counter point to the Jefferson quotes. Jefferson also said this:
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
As for the rest about Limbaugh, I note that so many seem to fear him that they feel they must bark at him like a dog at the postman. Name calling, insults, ad hominem attacks. But very little substance. Personally, I don't like any records to be sealed but, yet, they have been thoughout our history of presidents. Most often on reasons of national security. Why, there are records of the Clinton presidency that we still can't see. Will these be released now?
Will this start a new era in the US of succeeding presidents criminalizing, or even just slandering, their predecessors?
I think these are valid questions. Sometimes the postman brings bad news.
Posted by: Douglas | January 27, 2009 3:32 PM
WScott - re your list of Parker, Will, and Sullivan. Sean Hannity recently "interviewed" Limbaugh and they both agreed that the conservatives who had dinner recently with Obama were not authentic conservatives. George Will hosted that event in his home. I do love it when they feed on themselves. I do consider Will a conservative, in fact I can't think of a better example of a mainline conservative now that WFB is dead if one were looking to be gracious towards conservatives.
I've regularly read Will for so long I can't remember not reading him and while I do appreciate his perspective, find he also possesses that familiar conservative attribute by having a tendency towards intellectual dishonesty. I do find him vastly more honest than any other conservatives that publish opinions (Buchanan coming in a distant second, Frum appears to be trying to reform himself but not having much luck yet).
While I know Sullivan still clings to the conservative label and I see his intellectual honesty at a par with the best liberal pundits; I can not see how one fits him into that label unless one considers what the word conservative means in Britain, e.g., Tories and Sullivan's vein - Oakshottian conservatism. Given my politics are extremely close to Sullivan's in terms of policy positions, and while I have a life-long disgust at conservatism; I'd have to claim "no true Scotsman" on myself in terms of my considering myself a moderate small r republican if we allowed Sullivan's self-definition as a conservative.
I just can't reconcile Sullivan's claim to what everyone would agree is a modern-day conservative, especially the elements conservatives are actually proud of and not looking to discard, e.g., Christianism, hatred of the "other", state power and democratic conservatism over free people, authoritarianism, ideology over common interests, anti-science, pro-fundamentalism, faith over reason, historical revisionism, nationalism and jingoism, etc. Sullivan is far from all of these, as far as me. How is that a conservative in the year 2009?
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 3:33 PM
@WScott,
I once remarked to my brother that I was worried at how often I agree with George Will. He asked me why I would be worried by that. (Sometimes I don't think he understand just how liberal I am)
Thinking about the contrast between the conservatives you mention and the rogues gallery of cynical entertainers and wingnut baiters, I can now give him a better answer.
George Will (and presumably the others you mention, although I don't read much by conservatives) distinguishes himself from the rabble by the practice of thinking. While I don't always, or even usually, agree with him, I respect his well thought out position. He just starts from a different set of assumptions.
Posted by: BaldApe | January 27, 2009 3:39 PM
Douglas wrote:
Just a counter point to the Jefferson quotes. Jefferson also said this:
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
Hardly a counterpoint, more like you missed the point. Your quote says nothing at all about freedom of the press but merely comments on the quality of the newspapers. Jefferson's next sentence, following Ed's quote, is "But I should mean that every man should receive these papers, and be capable of reading them."
Posted by: tomh | January 27, 2009 3:49 PM
Where Will is disingenuous enough to be duplictious is that he avoids certain conservative arguments being made by conservative power brokers when those arguments are key to currently debated policy positions of those with power. Rather than confronting the crazier ideas of those Will supports, he either just avoids the topic altogether, makes a peripheral argument, or criticizes only the liberal argument while avoiding any prescriptions of his own. I think his goal is that he doesn't want to be perceived as a hypocrite when he condemns a liberal doing something he supported previously by a conservative. I see David Brooks of the New York Times doing this as well though not nearly as frequently; Brooks has also conceded enough that his own no longer claim possession of him.
On the other hand Will's long-time columnist neighbor at the WaPo, David Broder, is the most honest newspaper columnist I've ever read. Broder also possesses one extremely rare quality and another very uncommon quality: 1) He's able to treat even his ideological opponents with respect - a trait I neither share nor desire, and 2) he's more than willing to let liberals have it while consistently framing his support for a certain politician within a high set of standards that doesn't yield to expediency.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 4:50 PM
O'Reilly is the only wingnut previously mentioned that I have ever listened to and said "He does have a point". Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity are simply pot stirrers. I will not listen to a thing that they say. They have no original thinking at all. If you pick any topic their position can be predicted almost verbatim.
Posted by: Greg | January 27, 2009 6:51 PM
Jefferson tempered his support of the press during and after the Burr trial when public opinion was deeply divided over his administration. Fortunately (for him), he had friends who were the Rupert Murdochs of the day!
Posted by: Old Bogus | January 27, 2009 7:35 PM
re "personal responsibility" - don't you recognize the dog whistle this is? There was no emphasis on personal responsibility until the welfare of Great Society - and it is the personal responsibility of all the poor people in this country to not be poor. This really does not mean that the wealthy people or the political establishment has to take any personal responsibility - only poor people and usually poor people who are not white. And, of course, any woman who wants an abortion, regardless of the reason for said abortion. "Personal responsibility" is just a club for the haves to hit the have nots with.
Posted by: BC | January 27, 2009 8:10 PM
Forget "conservatism," please. It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Posted by: John Lofton, Recovering Republican | January 27, 2009 9:02 PM
John Lofton:
Drop dead, please.
Our country is collapsing because a lying fucking hypocrite was elected--TWICE--by a bunch of credulous boobs like yourself.
Michael Heath:
I guess I don't desire that trait that David Broder has neither.
Posted by: democommie | January 27, 2009 9:21 PM
Lofton - conservatism has lost to liberalism because there is no history of conservatism's ability to competently govern while liberalism has enjoyed and continues to enjoy numerous successes for the past two hundred years.
Spouting Bible verses as a premise makes you look, well, deluded. Especially given America's success with secular liberalism going on 220 years. Nice sleight of hand trying to blame the past eight years of conservative failure at the hands of the Christian Right on "secular conservatism"; I don't think this forum contains any one regular poster gullible enough, or idiotic enough, to consider your argument. So why try? Are you some sort of sick masochist looking for a rhetorical beating or just really desperate for some click-thrus?
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 9:22 PM
Lofton - conservatism has lost to liberalism because there is no history of conservatism's ability to competently govern while liberalism has enjoyed and continues to enjoy numerous successes for the past two hundred years.
LOL. If you think the brand of liberalism today is the same as it was 200 years ago, YOU are the deluded one. The liberalism of yesterday is more closely identified with the libertarianism of today. Liberalism is more closely linked with tyranny than it is to a free society. Look at all the nanny state stuff that is starting to come out of Congress. If you want to see what liberalism looks like, just take a look at what is going on in California, or what the morons running Congress are up to. Of, take a look at what liberalism is doing in Britain. Liberalism is a disaster.
Posted by: mroberts | January 27, 2009 9:46 PM
democommie stated:
Nor should you, on you it's a feature, not a bug. Me, not so much.
Notice this link:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/what_happened_to_conservapdia.php#comments
Along with the Senate hit list at Conservapedia noted above, we got our imprecatory prayer-meister Jay Rogers going at it trying to get God to off Obama: http://www.forerunner.com/blog/2009/01/imprecatory-prayer-procalmation-barack.html . Rogers was the guy praying to get McCain/Palin elected (though he voted Constitution party), and then off McCain so Palin could be the president to take us all to the Rapture. He's no longer solo as we was on McCain, I guess he alone didn't do much to persuade God to kill either Bill Clinton or McCain so maybe a prayer gang will work for him on Obama; not sure what your strength level needs to be at to provide enough power to God to get him to move off the dime. Rogers self-identifies with the Constitution Party as well as some other recent visitors.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 9:49 PM
LOL - Michael Heath writes "I don't think this forum contains any one regular poster gullible enough, or idiotic enough, to consider your argument", followed immediately by a post from mroberts.
Do you have anything concrete to say, or should we just take your word for it that California and Britain are doomed?Posted by: Taz | January 27, 2009 9:56 PM
Do you have anything concrete to say, or should we just take your word for it that California and Britain are doomed?
Why should anybody take my word for it? They aren't exactly examples of shining human progress.
Posted by: mroberts | January 27, 2009 10:04 PM
mroberts - I am perfectly cognizant of the differences between classical liberalism at our founding and the liberal democracy we enjoy now. I made millions from it in the 1990s, partly from California as well (three stints there). Much of my effort was also spent working in other liberal democracies in Europe, not to mention helping bring up business operations in developing countries that also were working to develop a liberal model like we and the Northern European countries enjoy.
So I guess I might be wrong, this forum might have one idiot gullible enough to buy Lofton's crap. When I wrote that comment to Lofton, I did have mroberts in mind as a possible outlier so it appears I overestimated him.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 10:06 PM
Posted by: Taz | January 27, 2009 10:08 PM
mroberts - I am perfectly cognizant of the differences between classical liberalism at our founding and the liberal democracy we enjoy now.
You are? Did you not make the statement that "liberalism has enjoyed and continues to enjoy numerous successes for the past two hundred years"? Correct me if I am wrong, but that sure sounds like you are implying that the liberalism of today is the same as yesterday. The two liberalisms could NOT be more different.
I made millions from it in the 1990s, partly from California as well (three stints there). Much of my effort was also spent working in other liberal democracies in Europe, not to mention helping bring up business operations in developing countries that also were working to develop a liberal model like we and the Northern European countries enjoy.
That's great, but that doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
So I guess I might be wrong, this forum might have one idiot gullible enough to buy Lofton's crap. When I wrote that comment to Lofton, I did have mroberts in mind as a possible outlier so it appears I overestimated him.
You people really have a lot of nerve. Yup, gotta bust out the insults. Are you going to actually argue things, or are insults the only thing you have Heath? I never said I agreed with Lofton, so where do you get off saying I do?
Posted by: mroberts | January 27, 2009 10:13 PM
Since mroberts brings up Britain, I spent a substantial amount of time in the U.K. developing or monitoring new factories in Scotland and England, and a tad in Ireland as well. Had a great time in those places; the people, the golf, the scotch, the beer. Very liberal people, never met one conservative in fact.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 10:14 PM
Compared to where? Actually, if I was taking a trip, California and Britain seem like two of the nicer destinations I could choose.
Wow, is that as deep as your thinking gets Taz? If a place is nice to spend a week in, then it must have a well-run government?
Posted by: mroberts | January 27, 2009 10:16 PM
Since mroberts brings up Britain, I spent a substantial amount of time in the U.K. developing or monitoring new factories in Scotland and England, and a tad in Ireland as well. Had a great time in those places; the people, the golf, the scotch, the beer. Very liberal people, never met one conservative in fact.
Great Heath, now that everybody knows about your extensive traveling experience and how much money you made doing it, how about we get back to the issue? Want to argue it, or are you just going to label me "gullible" and call it a night?
Posted by: mroberts | January 27, 2009 10:19 PM
mroberts - if you do not understand how the government we had in 1789 evolved into what we have today, and how those principles and ideals from then remain our rocks, then I can not help you with that level of rank ignorance.
Everything I support in the public square gets compared to the original ideals of that time. I am a child of the enlightenment and its obedient servant. The evolution has been natural, and its been an improvement, which is why we are so much richer now than we were then, relatively and nominally. 120 countries have followed us into liberal democracies since 1900 for a reason, I doubt few of those countries want to regress to Lofton's form of theocratic Christianist conservatism or your version of anti-equal rights, anti-science, and anti-quantitative economics.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 10:24 PM
Our country is collapsing because a lying fucking hypocrite was elected--TWICE--by a bunch of credulous boobs like yourself.
democommmie, why don't you do your homework before proverbially sticking your foot in your mouth? A quick glance at Lofton's site would have shown you that he probably supported Peroutka in 2004. I don't think he is in your "credulous boobs" category.
Posted by: mroberts | January 27, 2009 10:24 PM
Posted by: Taz | January 27, 2009 10:27 PM
mroberts - if you do not understand how the government we had in 1789 evolved into what we have today, and how those principles and ideals from then remain our rocks, then I can not help you with that level of rank ignorance.
Heath, implying that I am ignorant does not demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.
Everything I support in the public square gets compared to the original ideals of that time. I am a child of the enlightenment and its obedient servant. The evolution has been natural, and its been an improvement, which is why we are so much richer now than we were then, relatively and nominally. 120 countries have followed us into liberal democracies since 1900 for a reason, I doubt few of those countries want to regress to Lofton's form of theocratic Christianist conservatism or your version of anti-equal rights, anti-science, and anti-quantitative economics.
All beside the point. What countries choose to do does not, again, affirm that you know what you are talking about. I will ask again: Did you not make the statement that "liberalism has enjoyed and continues to enjoy numerous successes for the past two hundred years"? Correct me if I am wrong, but that sure sounds like you are implying that the liberalism of today is the same as yesterday. The two liberalisms could NOT be more different.
Your answer Heath?
Posted by: mroberts | January 27, 2009 10:30 PM
You've stated that liberalism is somehow destroying California and Britain, and "they aren't exactly examples of shining human progress", but you've offered nothing concrete to back up your exertions. Until you write something that doesn't sound like a bad Fox News talking point, don't expect much in reply.
Taz, do you honestly not know that California is one of the most liberal states in the country? Look, if you don't want to argue, just say so. Stop hiding behind your stupid well-you-haven't-shown-me-proof-that-California-and-Britain-are-liberal gas. If you are really that clueless, start reading a newspaper or watching the news.
Posted by: mroberts | January 27, 2009 10:41 PM
Liberalism is more closely linked with tyranny than it is to a free society.
How were liberals like King, Gandhi, FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Obama "linked with tyranny?" Your failure to flesh out your sweeping assertions with any specific acts or incidents once again makes you look clueless.
If you want to see what liberalism looks like, just take a look at what is going on in California, or what the morons running Congress are up to. Of, take a look at what liberalism is doing in Britain. Liberalism is a disaster.
Again, no specifics to back up your assertions. What horrible evil liberal policies are you talking about, exactly? Do you really expect ANYONE to believe that California, the UK, and the current US Congress can be conflated into one sentence, without elaboration?
That's great, but that doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
Actually, it does: he just showed he knows more, on a firsthand basis, than you do.
Great Heath, now that everybody knows about your extensive traveling experience and how much money you made doing it, how about we get back to the issue?
That IS the issue: those who have travelled to the places you mention have just demonstrated they know what they're talking about, and you don't.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 27, 2009 10:43 PM
mroberts, that's got to be one of the dumbest comments you've ever made. I call you out for stating that liberalism is destroying California and Britain, and defend the claim that they're liberal? What about the "destroying" part, jackass? You haven't offered anything to defend your claim, and now you're just obfuscating.
Posted by: Taz | January 27, 2009 10:50 PM
Right, mroberts, so liberal they elected a Republican governor and passed a ban on gay marriage, both well known liberal actions.
Posted by: Bachalon | January 27, 2009 10:57 PM
My answer mroberts is to stop. You continue to provide evidence you have an almost perfect ignorance regarding every subject you expound upon. I have neither the time, energy, or desire to create lengthy premises based on Western Civilization's history that should be collectively understood by those that care to debate or have a dialogue regarding optimal economic models and political frameworks.
I understand your rebuttal to my lack of premises, your points might be valid if this was our first time engaging where I'd be a nice guy and hold your hand on the rise of corporations, regulated capitalism, reason v. revelation and its impact on technology and economies, and social programs - their costs and benefits. But given the past where I spent a bunch of my time providing overwhelming evidence to previous premises you challenged (e.g., scientific evidence for global warming and what we know regarding sexual identity) with nary a response, which I took to be "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" rather than either rebutting those assertions or debating within them. . . well, shame me once, you know the rest.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 11:16 PM
BC said:
"re "personal responsibility" - don't you recognize the dog whistle this is? There was no emphasis on personal responsibility until the welfare of Great Society - and it is the personal responsibility of all the poor people in this country to not be poor. This really does not mean that the wealthy people or the political establishment has to take any personal responsibility - only poor people and usually poor people who are not white. And, of course, any woman who wants an abortion, regardless of the reason for said abortion. "Personal responsibility" is just a club for the haves to hit the have nots with."
BC, you've left the entire (and largest) middle class out. Many middle class working people identify with personal responsibility as a concept germane to public policy decisions. They are not (by definition) wealthy nor the political establishement, and I doubt very many sit around thinking "wow I need a club to hit the have-nots with". They simply think people ought to earn what they get and see many examples otherwise.
Posted by: Rich | January 28, 2009 2:14 AM
Michael Heath said:
"Broder also possesses one extremely rare quality and another very uncommon quality: 1) He's able to treat even his ideological opponents with respect - a trait I neither share nor desire,"
Sheesh, as a centrist in a polarized world, with this approach I'd be unable to respect anyone. Y'all suck anyway...
Posted by: Rich | January 28, 2009 2:32 AM
mroberts,
More evidence of California's liberality: recent court ruling that schools can expel students for merely appearing gay.
Posted by: Bachalon | January 28, 2009 10:57 AM
Still no explanation from mroberts about why California and Britain are terrible places that retard human progress and exactly how liberalism is to blame. Also waiting for the shining examples of "good" places and the reasons why they're so much better.
Posted by: Taz | January 28, 2009 11:07 AM
Bachalon - Really? You're kidding right?
looking too gay? How do they propose to measure this?
Judge: Sorry son you rate 4.5 Gays on the gayness scale.
Clerk of the Court: Funny, he didn't look gay.
Can you provide a link to the case? I'd love to read it. - Curiously DJ
PS Imagine if 'gay' was replaced by 'Black' or 'Jewish' or 'Communist', how would that change the reaction, and why? .
Posted by: DingoJack | January 28, 2009 11:07 AM
Mroberts wrote:
And yet, you still haven't said what's wrong with it (or with Britain, for that matter; sure, the Brit's are pretty ugly, on average, but you can hardly blame that on liberal politics). In your own words:
Are you going to actually argue things, or are insults the only thing you have[...]
Yeah.
Posted by: valhar2000 | January 28, 2009 11:19 AM
But, Dingojack, you can't do that! Those are completely different situations! Black people are equal humans, as created by God, and the proof of this is that Martin Luther King was a Minister, while the father of racism, Darwin, was an atheist. That's why schools could never expel students for being black.
On the other hand, the Bible forbids homosexual acts, which are unnatural and bad for society, since they cause God to send down natural disasters, much to his grief. Therefore, we must keep anything that even looks gay as far as possible from population centers.
See?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | January 28, 2009 11:26 AM
Valhar2000 - :)
No doubt Mrroberts will show us the bit in the bible where Chuck Heston - oops sorry - Moses came down with the Appendix 23a of the Ten Commandments - you know the bit that says having political views left of Adolf Hitler is an abomination in the sight of the slave-driver - I mean - Lord. [Rolls eyes so vigorously that he falls off chair] -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 28, 2009 11:38 AM
mroberts:
California is a split state - blue in the urban centers, deeply red in the valley. There's a reason Proposition 8 failed here - and it isnt that we're an overwhelmingly liberal state.
California's current problems do not derive from 'liberal' issues - and I note that mrroberts, when challenged to provide examples of liberal issues that led to current problems, completely failed to respond with any examples.
Our problems have many sources - prominent among them are the absurd amount of money we are spending on prisons and locking people away - hardly a liberal policy - and on the surrender of the government to the prison guards. Then there is the prop 13 / tax reduction refusal to adequately support our education systems - hardly a liberal policy - which has caused our schools to go from top 5 in the nation when I came through in the 70s, to near the bottom now.
And over top of all this, there is the way the federal tax system mines us - California pays FAR, FAR more in federal taxes each year than we get back in federal services and spending. That massive amount of money being removed from our economy goes to subsidize those nice red states, which get more than they pay. Conservative states have relatively stable budgets because they are being subsidized by liberal states, and that is damaging California badly right now.
In fact, I'm convinced that one of the reasons that conservatism can convince people that we don't need government services and safety net, is that those nice conservative states are getting all that federal subsidy and therefore have more economic stability than they would have otherwise - so they can pretend they don't need federal nets even while they rest on top of one.
Posted by: Lee | January 28, 2009 12:01 PM
@mrroberts, sorry but what liberal governance is this in the UK. IME those of my countrymen who self-identify as "liberals" almost all see every government since about 1970 as illiberal. Admittedly "liberal" has a different sense to in the US (something like "mildly anti-authoritarian and (usually) centrist on a left-right scale"), but if you mean "liberal" to mean "left-wing" then you are still way off. Only now, forced by the crisis, is the Thatcherite consensus retreating.
Also, do explain why Britain is such a dreadful place. I haven't been living there a for a couple of years, for work and family reasons, but when I left I don't remember it being too awful. We had our problems of course but IIRC we over-performed for our population and economy size in the sciences and arts and society seemed to function quite passably.
Posted by: Matt Heath | January 28, 2009 12:08 PM
Dingojack,
Unfortunately, no, I can't but you can find the article at the Raw Story written by John Byrne.
Posted by: Bachalon | January 28, 2009 2:00 PM
DJ - The expulsion story is here:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Court_Christian_school_can_expel_lesbian_0128.html
The ruling is that a non-public school can do this:
Posted by: Taz | January 28, 2009 2:21 PM
Also, the units of measure for homosexuality are fabulons.
Posted by: Bachalon | January 28, 2009 2:28 PM
mroberts:
Please join Mr. Lofton in dropping dead. I don't give a flying fuck who he voted for. He's obviously, and by his own admission, a person who thinks that this nations' fortunes are in the crapper because it has "turned away from GOD". How long before he or your come up with a proposal to throw teh GAY and abortion providers into the nearest volcano? You are such an asshat.
BTW, you, much like, heddle consistently accuse of other people of being nasty and stupid--you fucking moron. I'm not interestested in "arguing" or "debating" with you, you fool. You're a GODbothered bigot and that is what informs your stance on virtually every thread (oh, that AND your absurd claims about gold standard).
Posted by: democommie | January 28, 2009 3:08 PM
mroberts said:
"Heath, implying that I am ignorant does not demonstrate that you know what you are talking about."
I would never imply that you're ignorant--nor I think will Mr. Heath, in future--you idiot.
Posted by: democommie | January 28, 2009 3:15 PM
Well, mroberts is still going through his normal routine: enter a swaggering bully, leave a self-pitying crybaby.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 28, 2009 3:18 PM
Raging Bee:
I think it's swaggering crybaby, self-pitying bully.
Posted by: democommie | January 28, 2009 9:58 PM
"Fabulon" - there was a spray here called that, it (aledgedly) made ironing easier.
"Buy a litre of Fabulon, spray it around, even if wet, it makes ir easier to iron!" ... :D
Must be a better unit name for gayness. Any ideas? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 28, 2009 10:22 PM
Opps wrong thread, carry on.... DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 28, 2009 10:26 PM