Rush Limbaugh

[KittenKoder]

Not a single right-wingnut notion that is viable as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not a single right-wingnut notion that is viable as well.

except freedom, self government, thrift, personal responsibility, honesty, values, etc.

You know, reality.

 

[KittenKoder]

Not a single right-wingnut notion that is viable as well.

except freedom, self government, thrift, personal responsibility, honesty, values, etc.

You know, reality.

Those are the ones the left wants to, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

As for values ... NO government policy should ever be made about those or using them, because everyone has different values. Sadly I agree with the left values much more than the right, sorry but being nothing but livestock breeding and slaving for nothing is not a good set of values.

 

[Tech_Esq]

One of many:

On the August 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh overstated and once again misrepresented the current federal minimum wage. He claimed that "It's -- whatever it is, six and a quarter, seven bucks an hour," adding that "[t]he minimum wage has gotten so high that it's paying people that are not skilled to do anything."

In reality, the current federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, where it has stood for the past seven years. That's the second-longest span of time that the minimum wage has gone unchanged since its implementation in 1938, according to an article by the Economic Policy Institute.

He is, however, a very rich liar.

Media Matters - Limbaugh: "We don't retract anything we do here because we never lie and make things up on this program"

Are you as big a dumb ass as you appear to be? Why would you quote fucking Media Matters a known left wing sludge factory instead of going to the government source? Did it ever even occur to you to fact check your fucking info before posting it drone?

The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008.

U.S. Department of Labor - Minimum Wage

 

[Agnapostate]

I've read The Way Things Ought To Be before, but I came across a select passage of it the other day in my critical thinking class that highlighted a major inconsistency in Rush's ethical perspective. Consider this commentary of his on animal rights: "Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process. Most rights are based on the ability of people to agree on a social contract, the ability to make and keep agreements. Animals cannot possibly reach such an agreement with other creatures. They cannot respect anyone else’s rights. Therefore they cannot be said to have rights."

Now try this: "Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process. Most rights are based on the ability of people to agree on a social contract, the ability to make and keep agreements. Fetuses cannot possibly reach such an agreement with other creatures. They cannot respect anyone else’s rights. Therefore they cannot be said to have rights."

If Rush wants to maintain that rights are based on the ability to reciprocate, what would this do to his anti-abortion stance? Moreover, what would it mean for infants and mentally disabled adults?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Not a single right-wingnut notion that is viable as well.

except freedom, self government, thrift, personal responsibility, honesty, values, etc.

You know, reality.

Those are the ones the left wants to, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

As for values ... NO government policy should ever be made about those or using them, because everyone has different values. Sadly I agree with the left values much more than the right, sorry but being nothing but livestock breeding and slaving for nothing is not a good set of values.

I'm sorry, I must be an idiot. Could you please tell me what policy the left supports that shows they want/advocate personal responsibility? I just can't think of one.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I've read The Way Things Ought To Be before, but I came across a select passage of it the other day in my critical thinking class that highlighted a major inconsistency in Rush's ethical perspective. Consider this commentary of his on animal rights: "Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process. Most rights are based on the ability of people to agree on a social contract, the ability to make and keep agreements. Animals cannot possibly reach such an agreement with other creatures. They cannot respect anyone else’s rights. Therefore they cannot be said to have rights."

Now try this: "Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process. Most rights are based on the ability of people to agree on a social contract, the ability to make and keep agreements. Fetuses cannot possibly reach such an agreement with other creatures. They cannot respect anyone else’s rights. Therefore they cannot be said to have rights."

If Rush wants to maintain that rights are based on the ability to reciprocate, what would this do to his anti-abortion stance? Moreover, what would it mean for infants and mentally disabled adults?

Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice, but for the sake of argument

How does a Fetus not respect your rights? You have a lot of fetuses running across your grass? breaking into your house? playing their music too loud? illegally searching through your stuff?

 

[KittenKoder]

except freedom, self government, thrift, personal responsibility, honesty, values, etc.

You know, reality.

Those are the ones the left wants to, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

As for values ... NO government policy should ever be made about those or using them, because everyone has different values. Sadly I agree with the left values much more than the right, sorry but being nothing but livestock breeding and slaving for nothing is not a good set of values.

I'm sorry, I must be an idiot. Could you please tell me what policy the left supports that shows they want/advocate personal responsibility? I just can't think of one.

Setting up educational programs for one. But again, what either side says they want and what their policies create are two different things. Both sides say they want the same things most of the time, but neither sides policies will grant those.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Are you as big a dumb ass as you appear to be?

Tech, you don't appear that fucking sharp yourself. Did you go to the fucking link and see that the date for his pronouncement was in 2005, Dumb Ass? I don't think that Rush knew what the minimum would be in 2008 when he made the statement in 2005.

Why is it that so many of you on the right can't just discuss without the stupid little kid name calling, Dumb ASS?

 

[Agnapostate]

Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice, but for the sake of argument

How does a Fetus not respect your rights? You have a lot of fetuses running across your grass? breaking into your house? playing their music too loud? illegally searching through your stuff?

His meaning was that animals did not possess the ability to understand rights, not whether or not they specifically violated human rights. (They would not have the capacity to.) Similarly, human fetuses do not have the capacity to understand conceptions of rights, and according to Rush's logic, should not be entitled to rights.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I'm sorry, I must be an idiot. Could you please tell me what policy the left supports that shows they want/advocate personal responsibility? I just can't think of one.

You probably can't because your not on the left. We know that only righties advocate personal responsibility.

If you break the law, you pay the penalty. If you have a kid, you take care of him/her. If you work and make money, you pay taxes. If you believe in your country, you serve in the military. If you owe a debt, you pay it.

Any other policies on personal responsibility, Tech?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Are you as big a dumb ass as you appear to be?

Tech, you don't appear that fucking sharp yourself. Did you go to the fucking link and see that the date for his pronouncement was in 2005, Dumb Ass? I don't think that Rush knew what the minimum would be in 2008 when he made the statement in 2005.

Why is it that so many of you on the right can't just discuss without the stupid little kid name calling, Dumb ASS?

I make it a practice never to go to media matters for any reason. It might help their hit count.

So, you mean to tell us that you went back 4 years to find a trivial flaw in one sentence that would actually have been true in one or two years where he was clearly generalizing and not trying to be specific?

And you think that keeps you from being a dumb ASS....ASS?

 

[Father Time]

Not a single right-wingnut notion that is viable as well.

except freedom, self government, thrift, personal responsibility, honesty, values, etc.

You know, reality.

Those are the ones the left wants to, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

As for values ... NO government policy should ever be made about those or using them, because everyone has different values. Sadly I agree with the left values much more than the right, sorry but being nothing but livestock breeding and slaving for nothing is not a good set of values.

And freedom? Oh yeah we all know how the right wingers just loved the idea that people had the right to burn flags, watch porn etc. . The modern left isn't always too better though.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm sorry, I must be an idiot. Could you please tell me what policy the left supports that shows they want/advocate personal responsibility? I just can't think of one.

You probably can't because your not on the left. We know that only righties advocate personal responsibility.

If you break the law, you pay the penalty. If you have a kid, you take care of him/her. If you work and make money, you pay taxes. If you believe in your country, you serve in the military. If you owe a debt, you pay it.

Any other policies on personal responsibility, Tech?

So Rangel and Daschel and Geithner and lord will the list end at some point....are on the left and advocating personal responsibility by the "do what I say, not what I do" model right?

Bullshit.

I have seen evidence of the "break a law, pay the penalty" from the left. The fact is that truth in sentencing laws are always opposed by the left.

You believe in your country, you serve in the military? Maybe you did. But, the military is overwhelmingly Republican or on the right. If they weren't before they got there, they usually are by the time they leave. Of course, I'm not saying all but in this case, the military is not an "exact" reflection of society.

You have a debt, you pay it? So, the left, like Joe Biden, was for bankruptcy reform preventing the discharging of credit card debt? I guess that's one explanation of that vote. He had a paucity of company from the left though.

 

[Tech_Esq]

except freedom, self government, thrift, personal responsibility, honesty, values, etc.

You know, reality.

Those are the ones the left wants to, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

As for values ... NO government policy should ever be made about those or using them, because everyone has different values. Sadly I agree with the left values much more than the right, sorry but being nothing but livestock breeding and slaving for nothing is not a good set of values.

And freedom? Oh yeah we all know how the right wingers just loved the idea that people had the right to burn flags, watch porn etc. . The modern left isn't always too better though.

Offend a leftie with free speech on campus and you are likely to find your ass suspended or otherwise administratively chastised.

 

[Father Time]

Those are the ones the left wants to, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

As for values ... NO government policy should ever be made about those or using them, because everyone has different values. Sadly I agree with the left values much more than the right, sorry but being nothing but livestock breeding and slaving for nothing is not a good set of values.

And freedom? Oh yeah we all know how the right wingers just loved the idea that people had the right to burn flags, watch porn etc. . The modern left isn't always too better though.

Offend a leftie with free speech on campus and you are likely to find your ass suspended or otherwise administratively chastised.

Did I not just say the left wasn't that better?

Both sides have incredibly lousy excuses to bash free speech.

 

[American Horse]

I've read The Way Things Ought To Be before, but I came across a select passage of it the other day in my critical thinking class that highlighted a major inconsistency in Rush's ethical perspective. Consider this commentary of his on animal rights: "Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process. Most rights are based on the ability of people to agree on a social contract, the ability to make and keep agreements. Animals cannot possibly reach such an agreement with other creatures. They cannot respect anyone else’s rights. Therefore they cannot be said to have rights."

This is one of those issues that Rush completely loses me on; where he'd have us believe that animals are not self aware because they don't pay attention to themselves in mirrors. This is supposed to mean by extension that they aren’t aware that they will eventually die. Sweet bliss, I'd say. Unfortunately making the point that animals lack intelligence and self awareness means that it's ok for us to kill them indiscriminately. He understands our responsibility better now that he has his special little kitty. He seems to have a need to tell us everything that enters his mind.

As for intelligence, I'd posit that there is a greater difference between the most intelligent and the least intelligent human than there is between the least intelligent human and the most intelligent animal.

..

 

[Agnapostate]

This is one of those issues that Rush completely loses me on; where he'd have us believe that animals are not self aware because they don't pay attention to themselves in mirrors. This is supposed to mean by extension that they aren’t aware that they will eventually die. Sweet bliss, I'd say. Unfortunately making the point that animals lack intelligence and self awareness means that it's ok for us to kill them indiscriminately. He understands our responsibility better now that he has his special little kitty. He seems to have a need to tell us everything that enters his mind.

As for intelligence, I'd posit that there is a greater difference between the most intelligent and the least intelligent human than there is between the least intelligent human and the most intelligent animal.

..

I don't believe that self-awareness is even relevant to the welfarist approach to animal rights that Peter Singer (as opposed to Tom Regan, for instance) has taken. Of course, fetuses are a major class of humans that lack both self-awareness and the capacity to feel pain for a long while, so Rush's inconsistency remains.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice, but for the sake of argument

How does a Fetus not respect your rights? You have a lot of fetuses running across your grass? breaking into your house? playing their music too loud? illegally searching through your stuff?

His meaning was that animals did not possess the ability to understand rights, not whether or not they specifically violated human rights. (They would not have the capacity to.) Similarly, human fetuses do not have the capacity to understand conceptions of rights, and according to Rush's logic, should not be entitled to rights.

No, I understood his point. My point was that animals and fetuses are not similarly situated. Animals can act independently. Therefore, as a practical matter you can hypothesize that an animal may somehow how, some way violate some right that you normally maintain against society.

However, a fetus, not being able to act independently cannot be similarly hypothesized. So, the question becomes can you imagine a way in which a fetus can infringe some right of yours? If you can, then you can properly analogize the situation because the fetus and the animal would be similarly situated.

 

[Agnapostate]

No, I understood his point. My point was that animals and fetuses are not similarly situated. Animals can act independently. Therefore, as a practical matter you can hypothesize that an animal may somehow how, some way violate some right that you normally maintain against society.

However, a fetus, not being able to act independently cannot be similarly hypothesized. So, the question becomes can you imagine a way in which a fetus can infringe some right of yours? If you can, then you can properly analogize the situation because the fetus and the animal would be similarly situated.

That can't function as an apt analogy unless he is willing to consider the question of mentally disabled humans, who lack the capacity to comprehend rights and reciprocate, but could theoretically "violate" the right of another human regardless, through the use of physical force.