Limbaugh on Liberal's Religion

[Mac1958]

.

I agree with Limbaugh's opinion of the consistent and passionate blind faith the Left has for government, but holy crap, maybe religion isn't a good topic for him given his background. It should be interesting to see if there's any blowback from the Right about his comments on faith. Looking at them, isn't he right that faith is all a religious person has? Isn't that the point of faith?

.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Everyone takes certain tenets of their core beliefs on faith. No one is a total pragmatist, I forgive everyone for that much, it's the endless proselytizing on poorly examined beliefs that make me despise the fanatic of any stripe.

I, a pursuer of Truth, along with all agnostics & materialists, are pragmatists. I agree about fanaticism.

Oh, right. But it's OBAMA! who is the great divider.

/serious eye-rollage ensues

Glad to see you're catching on. The longer he's in office, the less colorblind we become. But to be fair, he's just continuing a trend that's been in effect since MLK was assassinated--prob'ly at the behest of LBJ, corrupt massah-in-chief that he was runnin' his herd of race war-lords/overseers down on the plantation. One thing I'll say for Obama, as bad as he is, he can't hold a candle to LBJ. I can't believe all the evil being finally leaked out about him 40 years after his death.

I don't think you notice what the OP is saying... the OP is saying Rush insulted himself, and most of us conservatives due to the fact that he called religion "blind faith".

Exactly, only I'd call 'em revealed religion conservatives. He goes on an on about being reasonable about politics, and rightly so, but not about religion, until now. I believe he's sincere about politics (at least he's right most of the time), but I'm not so sure, especially now, about his religious views. He never takes calls on the subject.

Seek help. Irrational hate and jealousy is bad for your blood pressure.

Seriously, who gives a damn what his opinion is?

Clinton and Obama have both felt it necessary to try to defend themselves against him by name.

Isn't funny how the libtards don't even understand what the OP is implying?

The Libs would rather agree with Hitler than a conservative. I get along fine with conservatives. I believe in freedom of religion. My definition of freedom is the right to be as, uh, emotivated as you want, on your own dime--IOW, keep your theocracy to yourself. And right now in the West, theocrats are way down on the worry pole from big government socialists.

Being far left is a religion, one that is worse than extremist Muslims.

Well....as bad as.

I actually listen to Rush. I like his show, but it's entertainment. A lot of what he says has some passel of truthfulness; the magnitude of which is invariably, somewhat questionable, though.

Just for the sake of argument, could you give a couple of significant examples of his political/economic errata?

The dude is, in fact, insulting the fat druggie......and all Christians...for believing in the great fairy tale ( even though he is not sure that El Rushbo really believes). But he is agreeing with him on the dopey comments about socialism being religious faith for liberals.

Says the acolyte worshiping at the feet of the community organizer as their Idol of Hope and Change--'bout as blind as it gets.

Retarded comments by the grand douche.....that drew love from a retarded nutter....who then posted it in an odd way here. He actually said that Limbaugh's political ducks are in a row. Funny, huh!.

Typical leftist: Hope, Change and name calling shoots their wad. S'what happens when your faith is completely blind, ya got nothin' else to work with.

It should be interesting to see if there's any blowback from the Right about his comments on faith. Looking at them, isn't he right that faith is all a religious person has? Isn't that the point of faith?

Well, blind faith yes. There's such a thing as reasoned faith, 2+2 is always going to =4, and that's just the start of the realm of objective Truth--philosophy professors' "all is subjective" BS notwithstanding. (They've pretty much necessarily painted themselves into that corner defending socialism.) Anybody can make subjective "sense", just ask Alice.

 

[bravoactual]

I thought that THE MAN BORN OFWOMAN, NAMED JESUS threw the Moneylender's out of the Temple, (My Temple Should Be A House of Prayer).

How much did THE MAN BORN OF WOMAN NAMED JESUS charge when he made, "The Lame To Walk, The Blind to See and The Deaft to Hear"/

Was the whole loaves and fishes thing seperate checks?

 

[ilia25]

This from the transcript of Limbaugh's show today (Tue. Nov. 26 '13):

"When Obama's not president, the messiah for them is a tree or some part of nature. When Obama's the top dog, then he's the messiah. And it's blind faith. It's total blind faith. Just like whatever you in your religion is, because faith, is all you got. Nobody can prove their religion. Faith is it. That's what's so important about faith. And these people, that's why they rip into Christianity so much, it's why they hate it. It's a threat. It's a threat to their own religion. It's a threat to their own religious beliefs."

(Yes Rush, and vice versa.....)

I disagree with Limbaugh almost 100% of the time when he goes off on a religious tirade. But this was different, he got it right though I don't think he meant to go there. He's saying that socialism for liberals is their religion. It's based on nothing but blind faith. Yes, absolutely! But in saying so, he went off on the blind faith of Christians etc. in their religion, in HIS religion. I don't think he realizes what he said, "Nobody can prove their religion. (Blind) Faith is it."

Amen, that goes for socialist revelation or divine revelation. Neither can stand up to reason which we should be using is religion and especially in government.

Limbaugh is a liar, just as any other conservative commentator. Their common BS is that there is capitalism, and there is socialism, and you have to choose one or another. And liberals choose socialism -- that's all bullshit.

No one one the left suggests that we should do away with the market-based economy. The role of the government is to smooth out market failures, like the rise in inequality (the rise, not the inequality itself), or economic depression, like the one we have been experiencing since 2008.

As for conservatism, this is the only reason it survives at all:

 

[PainefulTruth]

I thought that THE MAN BORN OFWOMAN, NAMED JESUS threw the Moneylender's out of the Temple, (My Temple Should Be A House of Prayer).

How much did THE MAN BORN OF WOMAN NAMED JESUS charge when he made, "The Lame To Walk, The Blind to See and The Deaft to Hear"/

Was the whole loaves and fishes thing seperate checks?

What are you talking about?

Limbaugh is a liar, just as any other conservative commentator. Their common BS is that there is capitalism, and there is socialism, and you have to choose one or another. And liberals choose socialism -- that's all bullshit.

Well, liberals do choose socialism, they just don't want to admit it. It isn't BS, just look at their works, from the '30s on. You can point to Republicans and say well they're socialists too, and both sides sell their influence to capitalists, and you'd be right. Part of the problem is the conflation of labels.

No one one the left suggests that we should do away with the market-based economy. The role of the government is to smooth out market failures, like the rise in inequality (the rise, not the inequality itself), or economic depression, like the one we have been experiencing since 2008.

In other words you're claim is that if socialism is of the fascist brand, it isn't socialism because the government doesn't own the engines of the economy that it controls.

What equality are you talking about, equality of rights, or equality of results? The 2008 economic recession/depression was brought about by gross government interference, mandating equality of results with "affordable housing" via sub-prime loans without demonstrating ability to pay or even making down payments. Attempting to achieve equal results is to attempt to legislate that we all have the same levels of intelligence, drive, risk tolerance, courage and luck--at the expense of equal rights. Maintaining equal rights is hard enough, as the plethora of moral/legal double standards testifies.

As for conservatism, this is the only reason it survives at all:

[/QUOTE]

What reason it that?

 

[ilia25]

Limbaugh is a liar, just as any other conservative commentator. Their common BS is that there is capitalism, and there is socialism, and you have to choose one or another. And liberals choose socialism -- that's all bullshit.

Well, liberals do choose socialism, they just don't want to admit it. It isn't BS, just look at their works, from the '30s on.

Yeah, sure, let's count Marx as a liberal and claim that all liberals are like him. You so used to that BS, you don't even notice it anymore..

Liberals -- I'm talking about 2013, not 1779 -- do NOT advocate replacing a market-based economy with anything else.

No one one the left suggests that we should do away with the market-based economy. The role of the government is to smooth out market failures, like the rise in inequality (the rise, not the inequality itself), or economic depression, like the one we have been experiencing since 2008.

In other words you're claim is that if socialism is of the fascist brand, it isn't socialism because the government doesn't own the engines of the economy that it controls.

That's right, it wasn't a socialism, but why the **** are you talking about Hitler's Germany?????????

If your definition of socialism is any government interference, then you are an idiot. By that definition anything is socialism, and anyone is socialist.

What equality are you talking about, equality of rights, or equality of results?

Equality of results. Market distributes income based, among many other things, on technological progress. That distribution was more equal 40-50 years ago, now we are going for situation when 90% of nation income will go to 1% of the earners. That's would not be a good news to anyone.

The 2008 economic recession/depression was brought about by gross government interference, mandating equality of results with "affordable housing" via sub-prime loans without demonstrating ability to pay or even making down payments.

Whatever caused financial or housing crisis is irrelevant. People are not unemployed because they are too much in debt -- it is a market failure, pure and simple. Read about deflationary spiral and depression.

Attempting to achieve equal results is to attempt to legislate that we all have the same levels of intelligence, drive, risk tolerance

What are you talking about? Since when progressive taxes legislate equal intelligence? Man you are perfect example of what watching Fox News can do to feeble minds.

As for conservatism, this is the only reason it survives at all:

What reason it that?

People so brainwashed they refuse to believe that anything useful -- like Medicare -- can come from the government.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Yeah, sure, let's count Marx as a liberal and claim that all liberals are like him. You so used to that BS, you don't even notice it anymore..

That's you're assumption, not mine. I've already delineated two types of socialists, fascists and communists. Marx, well, he wrote the book on communism. The USSR, China and just about every other two bit communist dictatorship proves that it doesn't work. But if they're to your liking, I'm sure you could probably get into Cuba or N. Korea.

Liberals -- I'm talking about 2013, not 1779 -- do NOT advocate replacing a market-based economy with anything else.

I know, ergo the fascist model of government control and shakedown of the market. S'what I said already but I guess you didn't pick up on it.

That's right, it wasn't a socialism, but why the **** are you talking about Hitler's Germany?????????

Nazi = German National Socialist Worker's Party. Hitler and Stalin were allies until their dictatorial egos got in the way. Dictatorships are the worst form of government control (with dictators as the government) .

If your definition of socialism is any government interference, then you are an idiot. By that definition anything is socialism, and anyone is socialist.

You have a point (except for the part about me being an idiot). Even the simplest government is a social contract between the people and the government. Socialism has come to mean, by convention, governmental departure from the model of protecting the rights of its citizens, and embarks on social engineering--big, intrusive, corrupt government. We are so far past that basic model, we're merely arguing about the degree of corruption and departure.

Equality of results. Market distributes income based, among many other things, on technological progress. That distribution was more equal 40-50 years ago, now we are going for situation when 90% of nation income will go to 1% of the earners. That's would not be a good news to anyone.

If that is the case (though I doubt your extreme figures, the principle of the problem you bring up does exist), then it's mostly the fault the corrupt redistribution system and bureaucracy that we've been living under for so long. In any case, as JFK put it so well, a rising tide lifts all boats. If equal rights are protected, then individuals can take charge of their destiny and work their way up as their talents and drive so enable them.

Whatever caused financial or housing crisis is irrelevant.

The government caused it and that's irrelevant? Canada, didn't have the mortgage crisis at all because it didn't tell it's banks to provide "affordable housing". It has had some problems but that's because of its other socialist programs and its close economic ties to us. They didn't suffer nearly as bad as we have. Now we've got Obamacare and the country is spending $4 trillion a year on $2 trillion in income even though it hasn't really kicked in yet. Wait till after the first of the year and corporations start having to cancel their health policies. So far it's only been individual policies.

People are not unemployed because they are too much in debt -- it is a market failure, pure and simple. Read about deflationary spiral and depression.

I have, right now in/deflation is near zero, being kept there, and supporting the markets, by the Treasury buying $85 billion dollars in bonds (that it issues) a month--IOW, printing money without printing presses. They just say "Whoop there it is!" as they just add it to the books. Wall Street eats it up, but they won't when the rent comes due.

What are you talking about? Since when progressive taxes legislate equal intelligence? Man you are perfect example of what watching Fox News can do to feeble minds.

Huh?

People so brainwashed they refuse to believe that anything useful -- like Medicare -- can come from the government.

The Medicare bureaucracy is probably THE major cause of rising medical costs. Why not at least let (God, LET!) the people chose where to invest their SS and Medicare funds. Where is all the money they've taken from us for those programs and put in a "lockbox"? It's empty.

 

[Clementine]

This from the transcript of Limbaugh's show today (Tue. Nov. 26 '13):

"When Obama's not president, the messiah for them is a tree or some part of nature. When Obama's the top dog, then he's the messiah. And it's blind faith. It's total blind faith. Just like whatever you in your religion is, because faith, is all you got. Nobody can prove their religion. Faith is it. That's what's so important about faith. And these people, that's why they rip into Christianity so much, it's why they hate it. It's a threat. It's a threat to their own religion. It's a threat to their own religious beliefs."

(Yes Rush, and vice versa.....)

I disagree with Limbaugh almost 100% of the time when he goes off on a religious tirade. But this was different, he got it right though I don't think he meant to go there. He's saying that socialism for liberals is their religion. It's based on nothing but blind faith. Yes, absolutely! But in saying so, he went off on the blind faith of Christians etc. in their religion, in HIS religion. I don't think he realizes what he said, "Nobody can prove their religion. (Blind) Faith is it."

Amen, that goes for socialist revelation or divine revelation. Neither can stand up to reason which we should be using is religion and especially in government.

The difference is that no one can prove God exists, but history has proven that socialism doesn't work and always ends in disaster. People who believe in God generally try to be good people. Look at the hospitals, schools and charities started by Churches. People who believe in socialism are expecting others to pay more so they can live better. They are takers, not givers.

Belief in socialism is blind and if the people opened their eyes, they'd see that it's a scam. Equal misery is the result every time and no one is happy. The leaders become wealthier while the people become more and more oppressed until there is communism.

The road is always a dead end, yet idiots always want to turn that way. The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results each time. How many countries must suffer the consequences of socialism-communism before we learn? Just because politicians dream of being dictators, that is no reason to let them try this shit again. The country belongs to the people, not the assholes in Washington.

 

[Mojo2]

Except Limbaugh has no problem with social conservatives pushing their religious beliefs on people. Limbaugh may have a point if he wasn't such a hypocrite.

Anyone who loves America and tells the truth about his own Pro-America proselytizing as much as he does is okay in my book. He'd have to do an awful lot of awful bad to change the positive esteem I hold him in.

 

[PainefulTruth]

The difference is that no one can prove God exists, but history has proven that socialism doesn't work and always ends in disaster.

True enough, but then they move the goal posts by saying that all Truth is subjective and therefore everything they say is right, subjectively. If living is such a pigsty is the only way for them to "win", they hold their noses and suck up the slop. "Better to reign in hell (etc.)....."

People who believe in God generally try to be good people. Look at the hospitals, schools and charities started by Churches. People who believe in socialism are expecting others to pay more so they can live better. They are takers, not givers.

Yes, and socialists do more than expect others to pay, they use government to force them pay. On the other hand, just because people place their blind faith in religion rather than socialism, that doesn't mean they haven't been a problem in the past or will be again in the future. Neither side uses reason and that's what scares me about them both.

Anyone who loves America and tells the truth about his own Pro-America proselytizing as much as he does is okay in my book. He'd have to do an awful lot of awful bad to change the positive esteem I hold him in.

And I hold him up in similar esteem; what he's accomplished (in mainstream media awareness alone) is phenomenal. But I put him in a box with caution tape around it because he won't face the religion issue. Theocracy, while not the threat to freedom that socialism currently is, has been a great source of oppression in the not-so-distant past, and could be again without vigilance. My point with this thread is that he would turn off half of his base if he came out and said what he (may) really think about religion. On the other hand, he probably doesn't realize that he could well double his base with acquired independents and recovering socialists.