White Coat Underground

I know, I know, I don’t usually do politics, but Rush is really chapping my ass right about now. His comments are always outrageously hate-filled diatribes, and he’s getting harder to ignore every day. What’s worse, his followers eagerly suckle at the teat intolerance, finding solace in his affirmation of their own bigotry. And finally, he is cynical beyond any hope of redemption.

First, he is virtually a Holocaust denier, and as we know, Holocaust denial is always a manifestation of hatred of Jews.

“He [Obama] is beating Germany up. He is ripping them to shreds over something they did 60 years ago. One day after praising all of Islam. Now can you imagine, there’s of course Elie Wiesel gets up there and he does his thing but it’s 65 years here or close to it…He’s up there and he’s ripping Germany for what it did 60 or 65 years ago, blah, blah, blah, blah. One day after praising to the hilt Islam, and talking about Islam, how America is a Muslim nation, so forth.”

The German people have been rather careful to avoid forgetting their not-so-distant past, and I don’t think they need Rush to tell them to “get over it”. When your nation is responsible for a massive genocide committed in living memory, forgetting is rather dangerous. But Rush can play both sides of this one. Regarding the attack at the Holocaust Memorial:

The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, may have been one of the shooter’s targets. You know why? Because the Weekly Standard is edited by “neocons,” Jewish people who are big on US foreign policy and defense of Israel. Leftist-type conspiracy theories. This guy may have been targeting a conservative publication.

[...]

A hater, a nutcase who hates neocons — i.e., Jews — this von Brunn guy, attacks the Holocaust museum and has in his possession the address of the Weekly Standard, a publication that is run by neocons, a term invented by liberals as a code word to describe Jews who run American foreign policy for the express defense of Israel. So this hater of neocons, hater of conservative Jews, von Brunn, attacks the Holocaust museum. There is another guy who hates neocons. His name is Chris Matthews. And he works at MSNBC, which is a network of endless hate.

Somehow, in Rush’s opiate-addled mind, neocon=Jew, and an attack on Jews is an attack on neocons, meaning that the attacker is a liberal. Got that?

I’ve got news for you Rush. The Jewish people aren’t new at this. We can recognize exploitation pretty easily, and your tortured reasoning reveals your own bigotry. “Neocon” is not the same as “Jew”—it is a common trope touted by isolationist antisemites. Also, neocon views are not a common “Jewish value”. The fact that some prominent neocons are Jewish and that you exploit this fact for your own political ends, makes you an idiot and an antisemitic bigot. And the Standard wasn’t targeted (if it was even targeted) because it is conservative. If it was targeted, it was because, in the hateful mind of the shooter, the Standard=Jews—neocons are the “collateral damage”, not Jews. Violent antisemites target Jewish victims, some of whom may be conservative. They do not target conservatives, some of whom happen to be Jewish. If you read the twisted writings of the shooter (whose name isn’t fit to be typed), he was a violent bigot, not an MSNBC-driven hunter of neocons.

He’s got a lot in common with you, Rush.

Comments

#1 Donna B.
June 11, 2009

I doubt we would agree (on the surface) about many political ideas, but we at least agree on Rush.

He’s an idiotic moron and I’ve held this opinion of him since he had a TV show way back when.

I’m not the only conservative who has walked away from the Republican party because people like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee are trying to kill conservatism. There is no conservative party right now, but this doesn’t mean I’m about to become a Democrat.
#2 PalMD
June 11, 2009

I doubt we would agree (on the surface) about many political ideas,

Yes, but you still read and that’s what’s really important : )
#3 _Arthur
June 11, 2009

I understand the first Neoconservatives were mostly Jewish, but all kinds of wingnuts have embraced the movement since.

Right-wingers also claim that Germany’s National-Socialism was “Socialism”,
although I never heard them claim that the Popular Democratic Republic of China is a Democracy …
#4 D. C. Sessions
June 11, 2009

No, no — you don’t get it.

Neocons = the new Chosen People
Other countries (the nations) = goyim

It’s obvious — neocons are the Jews described in (Rush’s) Scriptures! Of course, those annoying people who don’t do the Christ thing are troublemakers, especially since some of them are Democrats, trade unionists, and other undesirables. Ship ‘em back where they came from.
#5 Neuro-conservative
June 11, 2009

You are way off base here — totally misconstruing Rush’s points. Rush is a great supporter of Israel and a better ally of the Jewish people than is President Obama. Rush’s first point is that Obama is blind to the Nazi ideology that is rampant in the Arab world. His second point is that the term neocon is used as a slur by members of the antisemitic left (e.g., Chris Matthews). The greatest sources of antisemitism today are overwhelmingly from the left, not the right.
#6 Science Avenger
June 11, 2009

Neocon, in every use I’ve seen in the last 10 or so years, referred to the activist, imperialist branch of conservatism embraced by Bush, Cheney, and dare I say it, Rush Limbaugh. At no time have I ever heard it associated with Jews in any way prior to this article. Is this a recent change, or some underground usage?
#7 PalMD
June 11, 2009

Rush’s first point is that Obama is blind to the Nazi ideology that is rampant in the Arab world.

Bullshit

His second point is that the term neocon is used as a slur by members of the antisemitic left (e.g., Chris Matthews). T

Bullshit.
#8 Liver Lillied Noodle Dweller
June 11, 2009

How can any of you believe that Jews are real since you do not believe the Bible? Jewsare from the tribe of Judah named after one of the 12 sons of Jacob. Most of you say the Bible is not true. Does that make Jews not true also?

I ama proud supporter of Israel and wish they would wipe HAMAS and Hezbollah from existance. I’ll even help if I can. Sign me up for financial donations.

—————————–

Speaking of terrorists:

How many of you liberals are terrorists and call us conservatives terrorists? How many of you want to execute or imprison a “global warming denier”?

Website says “execute global warming deniers”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers%E2%80%94Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now
#9 Neuro-conservative
June 11, 2009

Sorry Pal — I guess I gave you too much credit as a rational individual able to discuss important intelligently. Apparently Rush Limbaugh goes over your head, and like a typical liberal you are reduced to sputtering foul nonsense. It is a shame, because I really thought you were better than that.
#10 Neuro-conservative
June 11, 2009

And by the way if you think your matinee idol Obama is a friend of the Jews, you are in for a rude awakening. Why do you think Bush is twice as popular as Obama amongst Israelis?
#11 PalMD
June 11, 2009

Do you think that every Jew is constantly asking, “is he good for the jews?” Cuz that’s pretty narrow.
#12 Igor
June 11, 2009

I’m sorry Liver, but tu quoque arguments don’t work here. Extremism is wrong in all shapes and forms from PETA (read leftist) tactics condemned on this and Denialism blogs, to Rush Limbaugh’s nonsense and abortion clinic killers, although if count actions rather than words you might find where the blame lies. Peddle your bullshit somewhere else, because here you don’t get to excuse your favorite brand of extremism by pointing fingers.
#13 WcT
June 11, 2009

Rush Limbaugh goes over your head

I don’t think Rush Limbaugh has ever gone over anyones head. He is quite explicit in his points. Picking out subtleties from Rush is like picking out Bible Code messages.

Why do you think Bush is twice as popular as Obama amongst Israelis?

Because Israeli is a nationality and Judaism is a religion? Oh, and Israel the country has lots of reasons to be in favor of an american government at war on multiple arabic fronts.

Liver lilled: Idiot, or Poe?
#14 Neuro-conservative
June 11, 2009

@#11– You don’t have to “constantly” ask — but if you failed to ask that after Obama’s speech in Egypt, then you are only fooling yourself.

@#13 — You may have noticed that Israel is the Jewish state — perhaps you would prefer it otherwise?
#15 WcT
June 11, 2009

Even if Israel=Jew
Jew does not = Israel
#16 Matt Platte
June 11, 2009

Typical ack-ack conservatism from Shallow-conservative and his pasta-loving friend: throw enough bullshit into the air and sooner or later a target will run into something stinky.

“Shallow”, because they can string together sequacious sentences yet cannot maintain the discipline of a debate.
#17 PalMD
June 11, 2009

I don’t know about you, NC, but I’m an American who happens to be Jewish. I’m not Israeli, I’m not a neocon, I don’t belong to a political party or contribute to any political organizations or PACs. But I know idiotic raving antisemitic wackaloonery when I see it.
#18 Neuro-conservative
June 11, 2009

Apparently not. Otherwise your post would have been about Obama’s spiritual mentor, Jeremiah “Them Jews” Wright.
#19 Science Avenger
June 11, 2009

Lilly Livered asks: How can any of you believe that Jews are real since you do not believe the Bible? Jews are from the tribe of Judah named after one of the 12 sons of Jacob. Most of you say the Bible is not true. Does that make Jews not true also?

The same way I can believe Tom Cruise is real even though I think his belief that he is the essence of a victim of Xenu’s galactic war is total poopy.

Believing the Bible is not the inspired word of Yahweh does not require one to believe that 100% of what is said in the Bible is false. I don’t believe in Atlas Shrugged either, but that doesn’t require me to reject the existence of New York. That this needs to be explained is, frankly, astonishing.
#20 _Arthur
June 11, 2009

“Neocon, in every use I’ve seen in the last 10 or so years, referred to the activist, imperialist branch of conservatism embraced by Bush, Cheney, and dare I say it, Rush Limbaugh. At no time have I ever heard it associated with Jews in any way prior to this article.”

I didn’t knew that the founders of the Neo-Conservatism where mostly Jewish, when, on a board, when I was criticizing Kagan’s neocon plans to take over any country on the planet that does not appear to act in US interresrs, I was acused of antisemitism and racism.

So, I researched the subject, and yes, when they were only 5 or 6 NeoCons, they were jewish. So, one cannot, at any time, criticize Neoconnery, no matter what current absurdity they are pushing.
#21 PalMD
June 11, 2009

The fact that Wright is an antisemite does not absolve Rush. How do people get so fucking stupid? Srsly. Fucking stupid ass goatfuckery.
#22 Neuro-conservative
June 11, 2009

What is it with liberals and foul language? Have you ever considered the possibility that there might be other opinions worth considering? You are a bully and a coward. And you have adduced no evidence, beyond your own misunderstandings, to support your slander of Rush.
#23 Donna B.
June 11, 2009

Oh yes, I read (#2) and I am sometimes completely amazed at the “justifications” of one position or another.

As you so correctly state “The fact that Wright is an antisemite does not absolve Rush.” Indeed, does it not indict both as nutcases even though approach the subject from opposite sides of the “aisle”?

What I wonder most about is why there are opposite sides of the aisle. Can’t reasonable thinking people agree that both extremes are — by definition — nuts?

I would hope, that as a thinking person, you would not be able to defend Letterman’s presentation of either of the Palin girls as mere sexual objects.

This is were I get really upset at both sides – their willingness to subject innocents to ridicule.
#24 Donna B.
June 11, 2009

I would like to distance myself from the use of “innocence” in post #23. Whether innocent or not (a definition not easily agreed upon), to present any female as a mere sexual object – regardless her history of sexual activity – is to dehumanize females as a group.
#25 Stephanie Z
June 11, 2009

Oh, I feel so late to the party. Let’s see:

5. Nazi reference
9. “I used to think so highly of you” + “you people”
10. Reverse ad hominem
14. “Poor deluded souls” + “arguing with me makes you a racist”
18. “I insist you talk about this unrelated item”
22. “Tsk, tsk. Language, dear.” + name-calling + “we’re having a debate now”

Come on, somebody’s got to have a troll bingo by now.
#26 Science Avenger
June 12, 2009

What is it with conservatives whining like little brats over the words used, instead of addressing the substance of what was said? Form over substance, that’s consistent with you guys, as is crying foul and declaring victory whenever the epithets you’ve earned surface. You are intellectual cowards.
#27 Joseph Hewitt
June 12, 2009

Come on, somebody’s got to have a troll bingo by now.

This was exactly what I thought while reading all of NC’s posts. If he’d just pull out “why are you picking on Rush when there are BIGGER problems you should be dealing with?” I could complete my diagonal.
#28 rev bigdumbchimp
June 12, 2009

Wow.

Rush is a true friend to no one but Rush. He knows what pays his bills and so be feeds that dragon. Rush is no more a political intellectual than is bill maher. He’s an entertainer who’s built a rabid loyal fanbase not unsimilar to Oprah. He knows that the more he appeals to the extremes of the right wing and republicans, the more he will appeal to the types who put him up as some of savior to the old boy GOP. While his tactics and rhetoric may fire up the ditto heads and give the appearance that he cares about what he rails on about, the truth is he only cares about Rush. The republican party, right wing politics and the ditto heads are only a means to increasing his power and therefore wealth. Entertainer not savior. He feels no shame lying his way through a story if it means his ditto booted thugs get the message as he wants them to see it.

Rush over our heads? That’s hilarious.
#29 Rev. Bigdumbchimp
June 12, 2009

Typos sorry. Commenting on SB from an iPhone doesn’t lend itself to editing very well.
#30 Neuro-conservative
June 12, 2009

You guys have an impressive set of defenses against taking in any alternate points of view. Have you ever even listened to Rush, or do you just get your talking points from Media Matters?
#31 Brian X
June 12, 2009

Speaking from the Left here:

You will be hard-pressed to find a liberal in the US who equates neocon to Jewish. Yeah, okay, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and it was founded by a guy named Strauss. But also Cheney (perhaps Anglo-Norman?), Limbaugh (sounds Celtic, perhaps Scots-Irish), Gingrich (probably South Slavic, possibly melted-and-recast Old Norse), Rumsfeld (German or Dutch), Rice (English), Wanniski (Polish), Quayle (Anglo-Celtic), Bush (English)… dare I go on? When most people think of neoconservatism, the Jewish members of the movement aren’t the first ones that come to mind.

I think it pretty safe to assume most American Jews are at least somewhat pro-Israel, but politically tend to lean moderate to liberal on most issues. (PalMD is free to correct me otherwise; it’s his blog.)

Neuro-conservative, #22:

Liberals use foul language because it shoves conservative sanctimony back in conservatives’ faces by intentionally violating their often-arbitrary standards for propriety (which are almost always slanted towards squelching dissent and enforcing conformity). Or see what Science Avenger said in #26 about substituting form for substance; it’s the same point.
#32 Brian X
June 12, 2009

Also, wasn’t “neocon” a term invented by neocons?

And if anything, Israel’s role in neocon foreign policy is somewhat tokenish; the original Strauss clique were a bunch of activist pearl-clutchers who didn’t like the freedom of the 60s counterculture and decided to create their own radical approach to policy — an all-or-nothing attitude, an a priory assumption that the American Way (as they knew it) was always the Right Thing, and a belief that the US was bound to evangelize itself around the world, at gunpoint if necessary, on the assumption that the benefits would be self-evident. (How Cold War-era well-poisoning by the cloak-and-dagger anticommunist crowd was going to be overcome was evidently handwaved.) Their economic policy was crystallized by Friedman and Laffer; their petri dish was Chile. (The fact that the Pinochet system was a cruel parody of a right-wing utopia was evidently handwaved as well.)

They started on the Left but became neo-conservatives by finding common cause with the radical right (the William F. Buckley types). They aren’t traditional conservatives because even though they share strict worldviews and authoritarian impulses, they’re fundamentally radicals and activists. They got a taste with Reagan and Bush I, kept their foot in the door with the Gingrich congress, allowed corrupt businesses and paleocons like Tom Delay to feast like gluttons, and sold us down the river under Bush II.

Right now you’ve got four main strains of conservative — Religious Right, paleocon (the old Right, the ones who miss Jim Crow and enforced classroom prayer, and aren’t too crazy about the 19th amendment), neocon (the Pinky and the Brain school), and the libertarians (many of whom are paleocons or neocons in disguise, the rest being highly doctrinaire and rather immature but consistent). There’s a lot of overlap between them, and an uneasy truce, but for the most part the only thing they have in common is authoritarianism and a desire to see their ideology rule the day. (It’s hard not to think that each branch sees the others as useful idiots. The neocons certainly treated the Religious Right that way during the Bush administration, which seems to have sent quite a few young evangelicals running for the Blue.) Truth be told, I’m pretty sure they all hate each other…
#33 Joseph Hewitt
June 12, 2009

You guys have an impressive set of defenses against taking in any alternate points of view.

Ah, the “you just aren’t open minded!” defense. Gotta love that one.

If something lives under a bridge and smells of dead goats, one can usually be justified in assuming that it’s a troll. When that same something starts with an unsupported assertion, immediately jumps to ad hominem, then repeatedly tries to change the subject… well then, now we can definitely say that it’s a troll.

Neuro-Conservative, what point to you want to argue? That Rush isn’t a spewing rectum of idiocy? That leftists are anti-semites? That Jeremiah Wright is the most dangerous man in America today? Pick one thesis and develop it; all this skipping around is just giving me more lines on the bingo card. Speaking of which, please try to work in the “you’re just trying to be offended!” gambit; it’d really help me a lot.

Please note that by saying “develop your thesis” I don’t mean “bang your political identity like a remote control with only one button”. You’re going to have to support your argument with something more than just your good name. If PalMD misinterpreted Rush’s words, then it should be easy enough to provide the missing context which would make it clear to the rest of us. As it stands now the provided quotes certainly seem to implicate Rush as an ignorant asshole, while you’ve provided nothing but an unsupported assertion that he isn’t (your own ignorant assholishness is left as an exercise to the reader).
#34 Adrienne
June 12, 2009

NC wrote
You guys have an impressive set of defenses against taking in any alternate points of view.

Whereas you, of course, are totally open-minded and willing to consider alternative points of view. Your open-mindedness veritably jumps out of the screen when I read your comments. /sarcasm
#35 Rev. BigDumbChimp
June 12, 2009

You guys have an impressive set of defenses against taking in any alternate points of view. Have you ever even listened to Rush, or do you just get your talking points from Media Matters?

Yes I’ve listened to Rush a fair amount.

You’ve got an impressive array of deflection techniques. Did you get those listening to Rush?

I’m still waiting for you to bring forth a subject and actually discuss it instead of calling foul on language, shifting the blame or jumping willy nilly though a number of non sequitur hoops.
#36 BB
June 12, 2009

Man, Obama threw Wright under the bus months ago. Enough already! I had a rabbi who hated all goyim. Spewed it from the pulpit. Being Orthodox, I can’t just change shuls like that (I have to walk to shul, can’t drive a car on Sabbath and holidays). I lobbied for change I could believe in (and served on the search committee twice). Now, does that mean I too hate all goyim because of rabbi of my shul did?
Please.
And FWIW, before the elections (US), polls showed more Israelis supported Obama over McCain, if I recall correctly. Israelis just re-elected Bibi. They are free to elect their leaders, just as we are free to elect ours. Any Jew reading this blog who wants to change the course of history in Israel should make aliyah, instead of whining about Obama.
#37 Ranson
June 12, 2009

I used to listen to Rush in high school. Then I grew up and realized than man’s an idiot. A media-savvy idiot, but an idiot. Even so, I’ve only recently left the Republican party. Mainly, it’s because they started prasing the idiots, and laziness, since the first condition has been going on for a while.

I’ve found that the easiest rule of thumb for picking out an anti-semite is the phrase “the Jew” or “the Jews”. Treating any ethnic or religious group like a monolith, particularly one as diverse and widespread as that one, reveals knee-jerk thinking of the lowest sort. It’s not always accurate, and depends on context, but makes spotting non-rabid bigots that much easier. You can substitute most any term in there for convenience.

In any case, support on lack of support for Israeli policy does not an anti-semite make, especially considering that their policy has been whipping back and forth for years now. Personally, I’m not a fan of the current government. I don’t think their settlement policies are in the best interest of Israel, much less the United states. Does that make me an anti-semite? Was I not an anti-semite before the election? Do my attitudes toward Islam affect this, despite the fact that no one here really knows what they are?*

NC confuses me.

*I’m trying to provoke bingo, here.
#38 Rev. BigDumbChimp
June 12, 2009

How can any of you believe that Jews are real since you do not believe the Bible? Jewsare from the tribe of Judah named after one of the 12 sons of Jacob. Most of you say the Bible is not true. Does that make Jews not true also?

So by that logic I don’t believe Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, Sikhs, Yazdânis and Rastafarians don’t exist.
#39 Rev. BigDumbChimp
June 12, 2009

yay for double negatives.

sigh I really should proof

So by that logic I don’t believe Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, Sikhs, Yazdânis and Rastafarians ~~don’t~~ exist.

better
#40 JohnV
June 12, 2009

Wait wait wait. Is Rush crying about people using neocon as a slur? The guy who uses liberal and democrat (because he’s too ignorant to realize the phrase should be democratIC party) as a way of instantly attacking and dismissing someone is throwing a fit because of the use of neocon? Why that’s as insane as a drug addict railing against drug users on a nationally syndicated radio show.

This might even be better than the day I heard him crying about how “look I know some of you don’t know a lot about computers, but I do. And this democrat party, they’re hiding so many things in this bill by making it a pdf file. For those of you who don’t know, it is impossible to search PDF files.” [paraphrased]. And yes, I heard him say that on the radio.
#41 Rev. BigDumbChimp
June 12, 2009

This might even be better than the day I heard him crying about how “look I know some of you don’t know a lot about computers, but I do. And this democrat party, they’re hiding so many things in this bill by making it a pdf file. For those of you who don’t know, it is impossible to search PDF files.” [paraphrased]. And yes, I heard him say that on the radio.

Damn I forgot about that little bit of humor. But it is a good example of how he and his dittoheads interact.
#42 LanceR, JSG
June 12, 2009

You are a bully and a coward. And you have adduced no evidence, beyond your own misunderstandings, to support your slander of Rush.

**tap, tap**

Damn. You broke my irony meter! That’s the fourth one this week! You owe me fifty bucks, Neutro-Codswallop!
#43 Blake Stacey
June 12, 2009

A joke I heard years ago:

Q. What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?

One is a giant, flaming Nazi gasbag, and the other was a dirigible.

How can any of you believe that Jews are real since you do not believe the Bible? Jewsare from the tribe of Judah named after one of the 12 sons of Jacob. Most of you say the Bible is not true. Does that make Jews not true also?

If you make a habit of saying things this stupid, you better get used to being called a motherfucking idiot with runny shit for brains.
#44 Blake Stacey
June 12, 2009

Gosh, I’m bitter today. Maybe I need to up my cuteness dosage. I keep eating kittens and pandas and fuzzy orphan kittens adopted by pandas, but it’s just not helping.
#45 daedalus2u
June 12, 2009

That was a pretty funny comment, the idea that anything that Rush could or would say going over PalMD’s (or anyone’s) head.

The main reason much of the GOP “base” is pro-Israel is because they are right-wing Christians who are trying to cause the Rapture to happen by making the events in Revelation come to pass so that Jesus will return post haste. When that happens they expect that all the Jews will be killed and tortured in Hell because they don’t believe in Jesus (along with all the rest of us).

That religious wack-a-loonery was exploited by Rove (an atheist) and Cheney (a war profiteer) to manipulate Bush into going to war against Iraq. They tried to use it to get him to attack Iran, but (thank God) Bush didn’t.

http://www.raptureready.com/

I don’t consider supporting someone to do foolish and misguided things is acting in their best interests. What has 40 years of occupation of Palestine done for Israel? Has it brought them peace? Will it ever bring them peace?

One of the reasons there is support for Israeli settlements in the US is because the Evangelicals want Israel to go back to the borders it had in their version of the Bible. A two state solution where the Jewish state doesn’t have the border it is “supposed” to have starts to unravel the chain of prophesies the Evangelicals have been working so hard to try and put together.
#46 Stu
June 12, 2009

The guy who uses liberal and democrat (because he’s too ignorant to realize the phrase should be democratIC party)

No no no, he knows damned well that it’s the DemocratIC party. But Franky Luntz focus-grouped it years ago, and Democrat has fewer positive connotations. The memo went out… it’s easy to see how organized the right really is, when within a few days everyone switched. Rush, Fox, Repuglian politicians (if they can make up a name, anyone can), the entire despicable lot of them.
#47 LanceR, JSG
June 12, 2009

Repuglian politicians (if they can make up a name, anyone can)

Agreed. I’m rather partial to “ReThugLyin Party”, myself.
#48 catgirl
June 12, 2009

I’m amazed at how many dittoheads read this blog. You’d really have to immerse yourself in Limbaugh to believe that anyone ever worshiped Obama. Stop making silly claims like that. Anyway, the only reason that Limbaugh supports Israel is because he hates Muslim people even more than Jewish people. It’s also really strange and incredibly stupid that someone (Liver Lillied Noodle Dweller) would assume that most readers of this blog are atheists or non-Christian, or that a non-believer would think that every word of the Bible is false. Try thinking for yourself instead of just eating up an regurgitating that straw-man propaganda about atheists that you have heard. Also, try thinking for yourselves instead of eating up and regurgitating the propaganda that anyone actually worshiped Obama.
#49 Rev. BigDumbChimp
June 12, 2009

If you make a habit of saying things this stupid, you better get used to being called a motherfucking idiot with runny shit for brains.

I was trying to be nice today, thanks for saying what I felt.
#50 Blake Stacey
June 12, 2009

Any time, Rev., any time.

Based on what I’ve read from the Biblical scholars, the moderate position these days is to say that not much of anything prior to 1 Samuel is actually historical, and as for the Samuel–Kings story, which is the last thing they’ve got left, well, they’re still arguing about it (but it doesn’t look very good). Lots of people in the early books of “the” Bible are eponyms: the relationships among tribes which existed at the time the books got written down were read back into history as relationships among family members, so that, for example, the most powerful tribe in a loose alliance became the eldest son.

All of which is, in this case, beside the point. Groups of self-identifying people with a common culture exist in the modern world, and if the stories they tell about themselves aren’t all true, so what? The culture still exists today. Paul Bunyan was invented in 1906; does this mean that Minnesota is a mythical state?
#51 Rev. BigDumbChimp
June 12, 2009

The culture still exists today. Paul Bunyan was invented in 1906; does this mean that Minnesota is a mythical state?

Wait

Are you suggesting that Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox aren’t real?
#52 PalMD
June 12, 2009

Wait

Are you suggesting that Minnesota is real?
#53 Science Avenger
June 12, 2009

Well, I don’t believe Michelle Bachmann can be real, so no, neither is Minnesota.
#54 Blake Stacey
June 12, 2009

Well, I admit that PZ does have a somewhat mythical air to him. . . the Cthulhu Mythos, of course.
#55 Dave Ruddell
June 12, 2009

If you die in Minnesota, you die in REAL LIFE!!!

(yes, I ripped that off from xkcd)
#56 Peter Boston
June 12, 2009

Limbaugh’s comments about Obama’s speech in Germany has been taken out of context. I heard the segment.

Limbaugh was contrasting Obama’s toady speech in Cairo where Obama misrepresented historical facts to give credit to the Islamic world for significant events for which they had made no actual contribution, with Obama’s speech in Germany where he ripped a Western democracy for things that happened before the lifetime of almost all Germans.

You should get your facts straight before attempting to don the mantle of intellectual objectivity.
#57 MonkeyPox
June 12, 2009

Peter, that is the biggest, steaming pile of disingenuous horse shit. In what context would this be “OK”? Srsly, with Rush, the more context you add, the worse it always gets.

And don’t even go there with your near-holocaust denial bullshit. The Germans take the holocaust a lot more seriously than most americans, especially the racist, antisemitic right wing wackaloons.
#58 Peter Boston
June 12, 2009

You miss the point entirely. Not surprising because you are apparently eager to accept second or third hand interpretations as truth.

Limbaugh’s comment was directed toward Obama’s duplicity and not the holocaust.
#59 Stu
June 12, 2009

Obama misrepresented historical facts to give credit to the Islamic world for significant events for which they had made no actual contribution

[Citation needed]
#60 MonkeyPox
June 12, 2009

I realize I’ve misread/misinterpreted some things here. Thank you for making me re-examine them.

When Rush said “One day after praising to the hilt Islam, and talking about Islam, how America is a Muslim nation, so forth.” what he really meant was…er…wait. I just read the entire transcript and he never said anything like that. Hmm…what about “praising them to the hilt”….well, he praised some of the achievements of the medieval muslim world, and then said horrible things like, “The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.”

Demented rightwing fucking wackaloons are just hatefilled gasbags of bigotry. It’s that simple.
#61 Peter Boston
June 12, 2009

Obama claimed that “Islam . . . carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” While medieval Islamic culture was impressive and ensured the survival of a few classical texts — often through the agency of Arabic-speaking Christians — it had little to do with the European rediscovery of classical Greek and Latin values. Europeans, Chinese, and Hindus, not Muslims, invented most of the breakthroughs Obama credited to Islamic innovation.

Much of the Renaissance, in fact, was more predicated on the centuries-long flight of Greek-speaking Byzantine scholars from Constantinople to Western Europe to escape the aggression of Islamic Turks. Many romantic thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to extend freedom to oppressed subjects of Muslim fundamentalist rule in eastern and southern Europe.

To credit Islam with the Renaissance your must first deny that Constantinople and the Greek speaking Byzantine Empire ever existed.

Obama also insisted that “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.” Yet the Spanish Inquisition began in 1478; by then Cordoba had long been re-conquered by Spanish Christians, and was governed as a staunchly Christian city.

Along with other Islamic apologists Obama ignored the massacres of Jewish men, women and children in Cordoba and Seville, to name but a few such atrocities. So called Islamic tolerance was entirely dependent on the whim of the sitting caliph. The non-Arab Moroccans were universally more tolerant (less murderous?) than their Arab successors.
#62 Denice Walter
June 12, 2009

I can’t tolerate listening to Rash, so I googled,”Limbaugh,economy,2009″,out of morbid curiosity: he compares Obama to Gorbachev, because they both perside/d over the “destruction of the economy”(of their respective countries).I’m not an economist(I’ve studied a bit,and I inherited the job of managing money),but there is something *profoundly* wrong with that statement… in so many ways.However,my main concern here is how he capitalizes on people’s fear. He reminds me a bit of the various merchants of woo:frighten you,limit your information sources,offer a “solution”, profit handily. The economy has actually improved and there are ways to measure this- numerically or by watching the faces of CNBC announcers or listening to see if they’re yelling or not, as they were in, say, October.
#63 Dianne
June 12, 2009

Obama’s speech in Germany where he ripped a Western democracy for things that happened before the lifetime of almost all Germans.

WWII ended 64 years ago. The average life expectancy in Germany is about 75 years in men, 80 in women. The average age in Germany is 42 years (IIRC-I can’t source that one since I read it in the RNZ or someplace like that and don’t remember exactly where.) There’s a heck of a lot of people in Germany who are older than 64. Including the current Pope. (Who, admittedly, is in the Vatican, not Germany.)

One of the things I admire about German culture is that they are willing to face up to their evil past without making weak excuses. The US could do with more of that. Obama is quite popular in Germany. The majority of people there do not feel that they are being beaten up by him.
#64 Peter Boston
June 12, 2009

Thank you for reminding me of the real meaning of post-modernism and the staggering level of self-induced stupidity our culture must endure for a few more years.
#65 Dianne
June 12, 2009

Along with other Islamic apologists Obama ignored the massacres of Jewish men, women and children in Cordoba and Seville,

Yeah, and he probably practically never brings up the Inquisition when giving speeches in Spain either. Clearly a Christian apologist. Not to mention the slaughter of the Canaanites. Jewish apologist. And then there was the time the Zoroastrians…
#66 Peter Boston
June 12, 2009

Yeah, and he probably practically never brings up the Inquisition when giving speeches in Spain either.

Does that mean that Obama gets stupid when he crosses the German border?

Not to mention the slaughter of the Canaanites.

Should I assume that you are promoting the historical accuracy of the entire Hebrew Bible? Or do you just pick and choose?

Jewish apologist

I never thought of myself as such but if I had to pick a culture that deserves defending for its overwhelming out-of-proportion contribution to humanity it would be Judasism
#67 GilbertNSullivan
June 12, 2009

Can someone please tell me what the fuck is going on the the US right now? How did it come to pass that Rush Limbaugh is now part of mainstream political discourse?

I fully appreciate that so-stupid-its-evil fuckwittery exists in European media too… but it’s firmly at the fringe. Is it simply the fact that this continent has experienced the fallout from what happens when demagogues manage to foment enough rage and resentment to start a war that it’s kept there?
#68 Stu
June 12, 2009

Can someone please tell me what the fuck is going on the the US right now? How did it come to pass that Rush Limbaugh is now part of mainstream political discourse?

*points at Peter Boston*

Because we have a lot of those over here.
#69 Stu
June 12, 2009

Obama claimed that “Islam . . . carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.”

Yes…

While medieval Islamic culture was impressive and ensured the survival of a few classical texts

Which is what he said…

it had little to do with the European rediscovery of classical Greek and Latin values.

You mean assuring the values were around had nothing to do with their rediscovery? Okidoki.

Europeans, Chinese, and Hindus, not Muslims, invented most of the breakthroughs Obama credited to Islamic innovation.

He did no such thing, and you damned well know it.

Boy, the Hatorade is strong in this one.
#70 catgirl
June 12, 2009

Europeans, Chinese, and Hindus, not Muslims, invented most of the breakthroughs Obama credited to Islamic innovation.

Which breakthroughs, specifically, did Obama credit to Muslims that were actually invented by others?
#71 mgr
June 12, 2009

Peter Boston at 3:33.

Quite a selective historical reading. Islam, particularly Spain, was responsible for expansion of the learning and scholasticism during the Dark Ages (Maimaiodes, Avicenna, Averroes), as well as the invention of algebra. I would note that some of these prominent scholars are Shepardim, and Jews had a prominent role in Spanish culture. What you fail to mention is that the texts of Aristotle and other Greeks were first available to the Franks and like through Spanish translations.

Secondly, the Spanish Inquisition was far more than you allow it to be, given my relatives from New Mexico still celebrate a Saturday sabbath with Christiam imprimatur. There was no place for either Muslim or Jew.

Mike
#72 GilbertNSullivan
June 12, 2009

Oh, and another thing…

Can Conservatives please get to grips with the fact that there is a difference between describing your loathing someone because you think they’re a malevolent oaf and stirring up hatred for someone on the basis that they are a terrorist sympathiser about to betray the nation?
#73 Peter Boston
June 12, 2009

“It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.” Text of Cairo Speech

I can understand why an American President giving a speech in Cairo would want to butter up the audience, but that does not diminish the contrast between the adulation that Obama heaped upon Islam and the scolding Obama gave to the Germans. As I said before, it was the contrast between the Cairo and German speeches that prompted Limbaugh’s comments.

Considering that within the days immediately preceding the Cairo speech Obama said (after bowing in deference to the Saudi king) that the US was not a Christian nation but was one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world, the contrast has special merit, and deserved to be mentioned.

Muslims have not been at the forefront of anything since ijtihad (reason) was declared un-Islamic 10 centuries ago and replaced by blind obedience to reactionary sharia dogma, which, in turn, ushered in a cultural and intellectual stagnation that is yet to be overcome. Indeed, the greatest Muslim minds over the centuries, from Averoes and Avicenna to Noble Prize physicist Abdus Salam, have invariably been persecuted and declared apostates by the guardians of Islamic orthodoxy.

You may have a few letters after your name but you appear to be as staggeringly incapable of civil discourse as your minions.
#74 MonkeyPox
June 12, 2009

Considering that within the days immediately preceding the Cairo speech Obama said (after bowing in deference to the Saudi king) that the US was not a Christian nation but was one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world, the contrast has special merit, and deserved to be mentioned.

Yeah, was some weird shit. Distinctly different from Bush’s Kiss and Hold Hands.

Oh, sorry, the US is a Christian nation? When did that happen?
#75 Peter Boston
June 12, 2009

Are you not aware that Charlemagne could read and write Latin and Greek? Or that he studied music and medicine? In 787 Charlemagne established mandatory schooling for the nobles and churchmen. Latin and Greek were taught in those schools.

It’s all well and good that Averoes and Avicenna are recognized as scholars but they were not the only game in town.

To make Obama’s statement true you must deny the existence of Constantinople and the reach and influence of the Byzantine Empire. Do you think it purely accidental that the Renaissance started in Italian Adriatic coastal cities? I hope not. Greek speaking scholars regularly and continuously commuted between Italy and Constantinople since the late 400s.

There were still Platonic schools in Constantinople when Muhammad was making his bones on neighboring tribes.

The Islamic contribution to the Renaissance is vastly overstated.
#76 Stu
June 12, 2009

As I said before, it was the contrast between the Cairo and German speeches that prompted Limbaugh’s comments.

Of course it was. *pat*

Obama said (after bowing in deference to the Saudi king) that the US was not a Christian nation

It ain’t.

was one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world

Liar. “Could be considered”. Because there’s a bunch of Muslims in the U.S. Big difference. Either you’re spectacularly uninformed (big surprise, if your news diet is Rush-infested), or lying through your teeth because you simply don’t like Obama. Which one is it?

You may have a few letters after your name but you appear to be as staggeringly incapable of civil discourse as your minions.

Educational inferiority complex? From a dittohead? What a shocker.

Whining about tone when arguments fail? What a shocker.

Let me guess: because of the lack of civil discourse, you will now take your ball and go home.
#77 Stephanie Z
June 12, 2009

Yes, Minnesota is real. However, after #73 and the massive shifting of goalposts, I’m not sure which state I’m in anymore.
#78 Peter Boston
June 12, 2009

I though that the poster named Stu was the blog moderator. My apology to the moderator if that is not correct.
#79 Stu
June 12, 2009

To make Obama’s statement true

What, that Islam contributed? You’ve already conceded that, for crying out loud. “How much” is, of course, disputable. You’ve created a strawman and have been whining ever since.

The Islamic contribution to the Renaissance is vastly overstated.

I happen to agree. Obama exagerrated to play to his audience. You know, he almost reminds me of a politician.
#80 Stu
June 12, 2009

I though that the poster named Stu was the blog moderator.

Not at all. You’re free to be as vitriolic to me as much as PalMD can stand
#81 Liver Lillied Noodle Dweller
June 12, 2009

This is an interesting turn of events. It turns out that the holocaust museum shooter had more in common with atheist leftwingers than he did with rightwingers – now if the media will report it!

Holocaust museum shooter a socialist who hated Christianity, conservatives, Jews
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09061201.html
#82 Dianne
June 12, 2009

I never thought of myself as such

Who said anything about you? I was talking about Obama.
#83 Dianne
June 12, 2009

It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra

And look where that’s gotten us…Schoolchildren everywhere dread the members of the evil al-Gebra gang and their implements of math instruction.
#84 Douglas McClean
June 13, 2009

I guess I fail to understand what is so flattering about a speech that basically says “10 centuries ago, you guys didn’t suck that much. Could we go back to some of that please? C’mon, I know you’ve got it in ya. :pat on head:”

Adulation was heaped upon Islam. Yup, that’s exactly what happened. Saying that someone’s ancestral civilization didn’t entirely suck 10 centuries ago is pretty much indistinguishable from embracing their current lunacy.

Meanwhile, with its other mouths, the very same right is still busy telling us how absolutely indispensable religion is for a functioning society, stubbornly refusing to realize that belief in uncompromisable edicts from imaginary sky-fairies (which always seem to be dictated in secret to the patriarchy) is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
#85 The Blind Watchmaker
June 13, 2009

Just wanted to point out that hate-filled bigotry is not necessarily inherited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061301326.html?hpid=moreheadlines
#86 DLC
June 14, 2009

Rush Limbaugh, windbag since 1990.
#87 Denice Walter
June 14, 2009

@DLC- actually, I think it’s “since 1951.”
#88 Stu
June 15, 2009

Holocaust museum shooter a socialist

Dumbest line ever. Did you actually read this fruit-loop’s book?
#89 Igor
June 15, 2009

I recall seeing rants against liberal Marxist dogma, so for anyone to label this guy a socialist in the classical sense of the word. A National Socialist maybe but we all know where that ideology is on the political spectrum. Either way, to attach blame to either the right or the left for actions of a White Supremacist is a bit of a stretch.
#90 Samia
June 18, 2009

Truly, nothing is beneath Rush Limbaugh.
#91 PalMD
June 18, 2009

Truly, nothing is beneath Rush Limbaugh.

…except maybe a bottle of opiates lodged in a skin fold next to a bottle of mountain dew and a spittle-stained copy of the constitution with all the “wrong” bits scratched out.
#92 Samia
June 18, 2009

I can’t believe I was even momentarily surprised that there are people out there just waiting to use horrific tragedies like this to buttress their insanity.

Mr. Limbaugh buttresses MY belief in the concept of evil.

In case anyone is interested, Racialicious has an interesting open thread discussion about the shooting. More of a race/politics/media coverage discussion, though.
#93 Luis
May 1, 2010

Mathematically, Rush Limbaugh is the limit of human idiocy as IQ tends to minus infinity.