Rush Limbaugh - 2.17.21 R.I.P.

[Apple Jack 4,937]

Benign?

[rcam 824]

42 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, rcam is laughing. Meanwhile, his music hero is a reborn Catholic who was drummed out of punk rock circles for the same reason Rush is being pilloried today. But he knows not better.

What a dupe.

LOL... I am laughing because you think they are the same thing. Your relativism is off the charts. 

Did Rush make a living by spewing racist, misogynistic, hate-filled rhetoric and conspiracy theories to millions of people?

Did Duke make a living by spewing racist, misogynistic, hate-filled rhetoric and conspiracy theories to millions of people?

Did Ben Weasel make a living by spewing racist, misogynistic, hate-filled rhetoric and conspiracy theories to millions of people?

There's your answer. HTH. And, to be frank, I don't respect Weasel - in life or in future death - for his opinions either but his legacy isn't those opinions. Someone like Bobby Fischer is the same thing. I don't respect Fischer as a person - though I respect his chess play. With Rush - they are one and the same. The man made his living on the very things I don't respect about Weasel or Fischer. His life 24/7 embodied what I think is despicable about Weasel and Fischer. So why does he get some sort of pass when he dies?

I also wouldn't call Ben Weasel a hero - in any sense of the word.

Edited February 19 by rcam

[rockaction 26,100]

Just now, rcam said:

I also wouldn't call Ben Weasel a hero - in any sense of the word.

You so woke.

[rcam 824]

Just now, rockaction said:

You so woke.

Nice dodge.

[rockaction 26,100]

Just now, rcam said:

Nice dodge.

Nice culture you have there. Where's your little red book?

[rockaction 26,100]

From programs to pogroms to rcams, let's all sing this one all together.

[squistion 12,632]

39 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Nice culture you have there. Where's your little red book?

I can't speak for rcam, but my little red book was stolen by Arthur Lee. 

Edited February 19 by squistion

[timschochet 34,983]

I would like to say- in terms of Ben Weasel whom I know nothing about- I do think it’s different for music. 
If you were a fan of Rush Limbaugh then the odds are you agreed with him politically- at least some of the time. Yes I know there is that odd person who enjoys listening to political talk they disagree with (I am that guy from time to time) but it’s unusual. 
Whereas in most situations people enjoy music, and are fans of musicians, without awareness of their political positions. Or they are aware and don’t care because they enjoy the music. 

[rockaction 26,100]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I would like to say- in terms of Ben Weasel whom I know nothing about- I do think it’s different for music. 
If you were a fan of Rush Limbaugh then the odds are you agreed with him politically- at least some of the time. Yes I know there is that odd person who enjoys listening to political talk they disagree with (I am that guy from time to time) but it’s unusual. 
Whereas in most situations people enjoy music, and are fans of musicians, without awareness of their political positions. Or they are aware and don’t care because they enjoy the music. 

I fully understand the distinction. Michael Jackson is Exhibit A for that. I'm just amazed how death brings out the worst in people, so much so that they can't separate its awesomeness and respect for that away from a person's life. Especially when that person is not responsible for grievous crimes. It's mind-boggling, this disdain for a talk radio jock who happened to take unpopular positions. Never piss off the coastal elites, I guess, they'll piss on your grave.

[BladeRunner 2,714]

3 hours ago, rcam said:

LOL... I am laughing because you think they are the same thing. Your relativism is off the charts. 

Did Rush make a living by spewing racist, misogynistic, hate-filled rhetoric and conspiracy theories to millions of people?

Did Duke make a living by spewing racist, misogynistic, hate-filled rhetoric and conspiracy theories to millions of people?

Did Ben Weasel make a living by spewing racist, misogynistic, hate-filled rhetoric and conspiracy theories to millions of people?

There's your answer. HTH. And, to be frank, I don't respect Weasel - in life or in future death - for his opinions either but his legacy isn't those opinions. Someone like Bobby Fischer is the same thing. I don't respect Fischer as a person - though I respect his chess play. With Rush - they are one and the same. The man made his living on the very things I don't respect about Weasel or Fischer. His life 24/7 embodied what I think is despicable about Weasel and Fischer. So why does he get some sort of pass when he dies?

I also wouldn't call Ben Weasel a hero - in any sense of the word.

No, he did not.  I think you're just reflexing because that's what your told to do.

I doubt you've ever listened to even one show of his.  Your posts on Rush are exactly what I would expect from someone who get's his talking point right from the Revolutionaries.

You've certainly showed what kind of hateful person your are.  You join a select few in this thread whose hate has consumed them. 

Edited February 19 by BladeRunner

[Da Guru 6,557]

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

I would like to say- in terms of Ben Weasel whom I know nothing about- I do think it’s different for music. 
If you were a fan of Rush Limbaugh then the odds are you agreed with him politically- at least some of the time. Yes I know there is that odd person who enjoys listening to political talk they disagree with (I am that guy from time to time) but it’s unusual. 
Whereas in most situations people enjoy music, and are fans of musicians, without awareness of their political positions. Or they are aware and don’t care because they enjoy the music. 

I just walked my dog for an hour and I always listen to the Mitch Albom Show on WJR. Mitch is a noted Liberal but also a true journalist unlike many today.  Mitch replayed an interview he had with Rush in March of 2001 when WJR picked up  Rush on the network. WJR is one of the biggest market AM stations in the country.  Mitch had not heard this interview since he did it.

One of the first things Mitch asked  was "What are we going to do about the huge political divide in our country that is getting worse by the day.  This was 20 years ago.   

I am going to look and see if I can find it becuase when it was done today even Mitch Albom said "I was not expecting Rush to be the way he was"  He explained very clearly every question asked of him with zero hostility.  One thing he said is that he never holds a person politics against them.   Mitch said..well you know I am liberal.  Rush said it does not matter to me, I enjoy talking to you and would love to talk more.

About his "Talent on loan from God"  Rush said  "We are all only here for so many years so my talent is on loan, your talent is on loan, everyones talent is on loan.  

[Chicago Hooligan 877]

never heard of this guy

[ekbeats 225]

 

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

I would like to say- in terms of Ben Weasel whom I know nothing about- I do think it’s different for music. 
If you were a fan of Rush Limbaugh then the odds are you agreed with him politically- at least some of the time. Yes I know there is that odd person who enjoys listening to political talk they disagree with (I am that guy from time to time) but it’s unusual. 
Whereas in most situations people enjoy music, and are fans of musicians, without awareness of their political positions. Or they are aware and don’t care because they enjoy the music. 

This may sound weird, but Tim you are a bit like Rush.  Like I said earlier I don’t always agree with Rush but I liked listening to him. And other than a few noteworthy lousy things he said, by and large he was a gentleman.  He was also well read and liked talking with people he didn’t agree with.  You two have a lot of similarities.

[rockaction 26,100]

23 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

One thing he said is that he never holds a person politics against them.  

There is one thing I've come across in my dealings with the left which is backed up by studies of Facebook and social media. The left will be much more quickly to unfriend you or disown you personally if they disagree with your politics. I have no idea why this is, or what causes it, but I have an inkling. The acceptance that the "personal is the political" by the left in America in the 1970s holds the key here. This is about when the left started questioning whether or not the "intolerant" members of the right (or of the left) deserved a personal pass given that they were voting on matters concerning the person at times. Whereas the right often thought in terms of liberal toleration of dissenting views, the left could not conceive of dissent to its shibboleths and social edicts. Manifest in the radical policy changes suggested by feminists in the 1970s to go along with the aforementioned slogan, we saw individuals on the right pilloried by the left. Unable to respond, and often overwhelmed, many on the right either sought anonymity or caved on issues that were otherwise defensible. It changed, however, with George W. Bush, and we saw it manifest itself in Trump and his supporters. But for the goose, the gander, it seemed to go, and both sides (yes, now both sides) are guilty of intolerance toward the person espousing beliefs rather than disagreement with the beliefs. Demonization is now key. No longer is dissent allowed, you're either "with us or against us," and the right has adopted the personalized politics that was once the province of the left. Lest it be misunderstood that the left has changed, however, we see this thread and countless other examples of cancel culture and wokeness that so permeate it today. It's a huge problem.

Edited February 20 by rockaction

[ekbeats 225]

12 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This is one thing I've come across in my dealings with the left, backed up by studies of Facebook and social media, is that the left will be much more quickly to unfriend you or disown you personally if they disagree with your politics. I have no idea why this is, or what causes it, but I have an inkling. The acceptance that the "personal is the political" by the left in America in the 1970s holds the key here. This is about when the left started questioning whether or not the "intolerant" members of the right (or of the left) deserved a personal pass given that they were voting on matters concerning the person at times. Whereas the right often thought in terms of liberal toleration of dissenting views, the left could not conceive of dissent to its shibboleths and social edicts. Manifest in the radical policy changes suggested by feminists in the 1970s to go along with the aforementioned slogan, we saw individuals on the right pilloried by the left. Unable to respond, and often overwhelmed, many on the right either sought anonymity or caved on issues that were otherwise defensible. It changed, however, with George W. Bush, and we saw it manifest itself in Trump and his supporters. But for the goose, the gander, it seemed to go, and both sides (yes, now both sides) are guilty of intolerance toward the person espousing beliefs rather than disagreement with the beliefs. Demonization is now key. No longer is dissent allowed, you're either "with us or against us," and the right has adopted the personalized politics that was once the province of the left. Lest it be misunderstood that the left has changed, however, we see this thread and countless other examples of cancel culture and wokeness that so permeate it today. It's a huge problem.

Not to generalize but this old quote came to mind when I read this:

Conservatives think Liberals are people with bad ideas.  Liberals think Conservatives are bad people.

[squistion 12,632]

Lauren Boebert @laurenboebert 3h

I'm calling on Joe Biden to order flags to be flown at half-staff in honor of Rush Limbaugh.

https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1362868914955419648

[The Future Champs 2,638]

1 hour ago, rockaction said:

There is one thing I've come across in my dealings with the left which is backed up by studies of Facebook and social media. The left will be much more quickly to unfriend you or disown you personally if they disagree with your politics. I have no idea why this is, or what causes it, but I have an inkling. The acceptance that the "personal is the political" by the left in America in the 1970s holds the key here. This is about when the left started questioning whether or not the "intolerant" members of the right (or of the left) deserved a personal pass given that they were voting on matters concerning the person at times. Whereas the right often thought in terms of liberal toleration of dissenting views, the left could not conceive of dissent to its shibboleths and social edicts. Manifest in the radical policy changes suggested by feminists in the 1970s to go along with the aforementioned slogan, we saw individuals on the right pilloried by the left. Unable to respond, and often overwhelmed, many on the right either sought anonymity or caved on issues that were otherwise defensible. It changed, however, with George W. Bush, and we saw it manifest itself in Trump and his supporters. But for the goose, the gander, it seemed to go, and both sides (yes, now both sides) are guilty of intolerance toward the person espousing beliefs rather than disagreement with the beliefs. Demonization is now key. No longer is dissent allowed, you're either "with us or against us," and the right has adopted the personalized politics that was once the province of the left. Lest it be misunderstood that the left has changed, however, we see this thread and countless other examples of cancel culture and wokeness that so permeate it today. It's a huge problem.

Rock, the right has been intolerant for far longer than the left.  Consider the term "RINO", how long that has been in use, and the fact that there is still no equivalent term in use by the left.

 

RINO Wiki

[BladeRunner 2,714]

11 minutes ago, The Future Champs said:

Rock, the right has been intolerant for far longer than the left.  Consider the term "RINO", how long that has been in use, and the fact that there is still no equivalent term in use by the left.

RINO Wiki

Sorry, but that's just not the same thing.  The American left's intolerance stems from the 60's and 70's like Rock said.  It's based in Marxist/Communist ideas (read up on the Kulaks) the left embraced and that streak runs thru the party today.

What we are seeing from the left currently bears striking resemblance to what happened prior, during and after the Russian revolution.

Edited February 20 by BladeRunner

[Apple Jack 4,937]

1 hour ago, rockaction said:

There is one thing I've come across in my dealings with the left which is backed up by studies of Facebook and social media. The left will be much more quickly to unfriend you or disown you personally if they disagree with your politics. I have no idea why this is, or what causes it, but I have an inkling. The acceptance that the "personal is the political" by the left in America in the 1970s holds the key here. This is about when the left started questioning whether or not the "intolerant" members of the right (or of the left) deserved a personal pass given that they were voting on matters concerning the person at times. Whereas the right often thought in terms of liberal toleration of dissenting views, the left could not conceive of dissent to its shibboleths and social edicts. Manifest in the radical policy changes suggested by feminists in the 1970s to go along with the aforementioned slogan, we saw individuals on the right pilloried by the left. Unable to respond, and often overwhelmed, many on the right either sought anonymity or caved on issues that were otherwise defensible. It changed, however, with George W. Bush, and we saw it manifest itself in Trump and his supporters. But for the goose, the gander, it seemed to go, and both sides (yes, now both sides) are guilty of intolerance toward the person espousing beliefs rather than disagreement with the beliefs. Demonization is now key. No longer is dissent allowed, you're either "with us or against us," and the right has adopted the personalized politics that was once the province of the left. Lest it be misunderstood that the left has changed, however, we see this thread and countless other examples of cancel culture and wokeness that so permeate it today. It's a huge problem.

Are you sure you aren't mistaking character flaws for "politics?"

And yes, the intolerance of the right long predates any of this. And is really the genesis of the move in recent decades of "the left" advising some to go be well.

Edited February 20 by Apple Jack

[ekbeats 225]

1 minute ago, Apple Jack said:

Are you sure you aren't mistaking "politics" for character flaws?

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/793826-rush-limbaugh-21721-rip/?do=findComment&comment=23259288

[timschochet 34,983]

5 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Sorry, but that's just not the same thing.  The American left's intolerance stems from the 60's and 70's like Rock said.  It's based in Marxist/Communist ideas (read up on the Kulaks) the left embraced and that streak runs thru the party today.

What we are seeing from the left currently bears striking resemblance to what happened prior, during and after the Russian revolution.

With regard to your first point, it depends what you’re referring to. Personally I think being intolerant of racism, sexism, bigotry, etc is a good thing. 
With regard to your second point, sigh. This is not the first time you have made some amazing historical analogies. I have to ask, have you really studied the Russian Revolution? If so, what books have you read? I’m really not trying to challenge you but your assertions are so far removed from the books I have read on this subject (several) that I would really like to know. 

[Apple Jack 4,937]

1 hour ago, ekbeats said:

Not to generalize but this old quote came to mind when I read this:

Conservatives think Liberals are people with bad ideas.  Liberals think Conservatives are bad people.

There is definitely truth to this.

[NorvilleBarnes 4,256]

40 minutes ago, squistion said:

Lauren Boebert @laurenboebert 3h

I'm calling on Joe Biden to order flags to be flown at half-staff in honor of Rush Limbaugh.

https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1362868914955419648

Was just coming in here to post this. You beat me only because I couldn't stop laughing.

[ekbeats 225]

16 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

There is definitely truth to this.

Why do you think that is?  There are several issues that Conservatives could view as evil and character defining on the Left - abortion being the main one.  Years ago I could understand gays hating the Right, because the Right was espousing some level of hate towards gays IMO.  But today?  That type of right wing “hate” is far less common.  So why do Leftists make policy disagreements so personal today?  It seems like personal demonization has become their modus operandi.

Edited February 20 by ekbeats

[ekbeats 225]

Saul Alisky - Rule #13 in Rules for Radicals:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

[KarmaPolice 18,067]

1 hour ago, rockaction said:

There is one thing I've come across in my dealings with the left which is backed up by studies of Facebook and social media. The left will be much more quickly to unfriend you or disown you personally if they disagree with your politics. I have no idea why this is, or what causes it, but I have an inkling. The acceptance that the "personal is the political" by the left in America in the 1970s holds the key here. This is about when the left started questioning whether or not the "intolerant" members of the right (or of the left) deserved a personal pass given that they were voting on matters concerning the person at times. Whereas the right often thought in terms of liberal toleration of dissenting views, the left could not conceive of dissent to its shibboleths and social edicts. Manifest in the radical policy changes suggested by feminists in the 1970s to go along with the aforementioned slogan, we saw individuals on the right pilloried by the left. Unable to respond, and often overwhelmed, many on the right either sought anonymity or caved on issues that were otherwise defensible. It changed, however, with George W. Bush, and we saw it manifest itself in Trump and his supporters. But for the goose, the gander, it seemed to go, and both sides (yes, now both sides) are guilty of intolerance toward the person espousing beliefs rather than disagreement with the beliefs. Demonization is now key. No longer is dissent allowed, you're either "with us or against us," and the right has adopted the personalized politics that was once the province of the left. Lest it be misunderstood that the left has changed, however, we see this thread and countless other examples of cancel culture and wokeness that so permeate it today. It's a huge problem.

I think there is a difference between unfriending someone on FB and disowning them IRL too.  

I will be honest.  I am off FB now, but when I was on the majority of people I would unfollow were from the right, but it wasn't a policy disagreement, it was usually frequent anti-science or overly religious posts (and those two things are more common on one side of the aisle).   There werea few unfollowed because they were over the top pc. 

NOW - that has zip to do with my feelings of them as humans, or my ability to interact with them IRL, its just not what I wanted to be bombarded with when I logged on.  

[KarmaPolice 18,067]

19 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Why do you think that is?  There are several issues that Conservatives could view as evil and character defining on the Left - abortion being the main one.  Years ago I could understand gays hating the Right, because the Right was espousing some level of hate towards gays IMO.  But today?  That type of right wing “hate” is far less common.  So why do Leftists make policy disagreements so personal today?  It seems like personal demonization has become their modus operandi.

 I think stances on personal issues like: trans policies, race, etc...  are still at the forefront.  

For example, I have seen many posts claiming that systemic racism doesn't exist and hasn't for decades around here.  Its not hard to understand why a group of people would take a stance like that personally.  

[squistion 12,632]

2 hours ago, ekbeats said:

Not to generalize but this old quote came to mind when I read this:

Conservatives think Liberals are people with bad ideas.  Liberals think Conservatives are bad people.

It isn't an old quote, unless you consider 2014 old for quotations (that is the earliest I can find any use of it on social media). 

And it is false. I don't know of, nor have I met, any liberal who thinks that conservatives are inherently bad people. Please.

Yes there are conservatives who are bad people, just as there are liberals who are also bad people. 

Edited February 20 by squistion

[rockaction 26,100]

Just now, KarmaPolice said:

I think there is a difference between unfriending someone on FB and disowning them IRL too.  

I will be honest.  I am off FB now, but when I was on the majority of people I would unfollow were from the right, but it wasn't a policy disagreement, it was usually frequent anti-science or overly religious posts (and those two things are more common on one side of the aisle).   There werea few unfollowed because they were over the top pc. 

NOW - that has zip to do with my feelings of them as humans, or my ability to interact with them IRL, its just not what I wanted to be bombarded with when I logged on.  

That's more than fair, and the studies that concentrated on that behavior did, IIRC, focus on unfriending as opposed to writing them off in real life. And there is a big difference between unfriending someone on facebook and how one feels about them as a person. But I think that studies have borne out, not just Facebook and social media ones, that people of left-wing persuasions are much more likely to ostracize conservative-leaning people than the reverse.

Here's a brief excerpt from Pew Research Center

Liberals:

Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.

[ekbeats 225]

16 minutes ago, squistion said:

It isn't an old quote, unless you consider 2014 old for quotations (that is the earliest I can find any use of it on social media). 

And it is false. I don't know of, nor have I met, any liberal who thinks that conservatives are inherently bad people. Please.

Yes there are conservatives who are bad people, just as there are liberals who are also bad people. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17388372

[KarmaPolice 18,067]

5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

That's more than fair, and the studies that concentrated on that behavior did, IIRC, focus on unfriending as opposed to writing them off in real life. And there is a big difference between unfriending someone on facebook and how one feels about them as a person. But I think that studies have borne out, not just Facebook and social media ones, that people of left-wing persuasions are much more likely to ostracize conservative-leaning people than the reverse.

Here's a brief excerpt from Pew Research Center

Liberals:

Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.

I think what I am getting at is that is this specifically to politics, or something else that manifests that way?  

Again, I am just trying to be honest here.   Putting aside any overtly evil, racist, violent people - the type of people that I personally have trouble relating to and depending on the varying degrees of it would defriend/not spend much time with, etc..  would be:  general lack of empathy, overly religious, and anti-science.   Now, none of that has to do with political stances, but it would probably skew towards one political party over the other.   That's why I am asking, as I agree it would look like I am distancing myself from a political leaning, but if asked I would say it was over big differences in worldview.  

[squistion 12,632]

Just now, ekbeats said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17388372

Hillary's senior thesis at Wellesley College, written in 1969, about Saul Alinsky?

Yeah, really proves your point.  

[ekbeats 225]

Just now, squistion said:

Hillary's senior thesis at Wellesley College, written in 1969, about Saul Alinsky?

Yeah, really proves your point.  

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315

[squistion 12,632]

Just now, ekbeats said:

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315

As with Hillary's thesis, this does nothing to prove your quote:

Quote

Conservatives think Liberals are people with bad ideas.  Liberals think Conservatives are bad people.

 

[rockaction 26,100]

10 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I think what I am getting at is that is this specifically to politics, or something else that manifests that way?  

Again, I am just trying to be honest here.   Putting aside any overtly evil, racist, violent people - the type of people that I personally have trouble relating to and depending on the varying degrees of it would defriend/not spend much time with, etc..  would be:  general lack of empathy, overly religious, and anti-science.   Now, none of that has to do with political stances, but it would probably skew towards one political party over the other.   That's why I am asking, as I agree it would look like I am distancing myself from a political leaning, but if asked I would say it was over big differences in worldview.  

I think answering that is fraught with problems. From just gleaning the research, I can see that those who study political psychology have noted that the rise of personally identifying with a party and its policy preferences has exacerbated peoples' political distaste for those across the aisle. Other than that, those qualities that you list -- and the way it implicates the political divide among friends and acquaintances -- may be inextricably linked in the current consensus.

Edited February 20 by rockaction

[ekbeats 225]

34 minutes ago, squistion said:

As with Hillary's thesis, this does nothing to prove your quote:

 

My point is, Liberals have a penchant for demonizing people they disagree with. The whole cancel culture phenomenon is a natural outgrowth of that.  Hopefully we agree that this is a thing today.  So where did it come from? I suggest one of the areas is Saul Alinsky who had it as one of his 13 rules.  Yeah, Saul is long gone but his teachings did take root.  Two of the  most prominent Liberals in the Democratic Party the last 40 years were influenced by his teachings.  Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis about him and Barak Obama cut his community organizing teeth in Chicago where Alinsky lived and operated.  These are undeniable ties.  And when you combine that with Alinsky’s tactics being used by so many Liberals today, I think it is very reasonable to suggest that the roots of that behavior can in large measure be traced back to Alinsky and his adherents.

Edited February 20 by ekbeats

[timschochet 34,983]

I would guess that at this point at least 20 times more conservatives know who Saul Alinsky was than liberals do. 

[ekbeats 225]

9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I would guess that at this point at least 20 times more conservatives know who Saul Alinsky was than liberals do. 

Fair statement.  But do you think there is something to Liberals demonizing their political opponents?  What do you see as the the root of this? 

[tommyGunZ 4,731]

2 hours ago, ekbeats said:

Why do you think that is?  There are several issues that Conservatives could view as evil and character defining on the Left - abortion being the main one.  Years ago I could understand gays hating the Right, because the Right was espousing some level of hate towards gays IMO.  But today?  That type of right wing “hate” is far less common.  So why do Leftists make policy disagreements so personal today?  It seems like personal demonization has become their modus operandi.

The current Republican Party platform states that marriage is between one man and one woman, and they oppose gay marriage.  

[tonydead 8,021]

5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

 I think you're just reflexing because that's what you're told to do..

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20 by tonydead

[timschochet 34,983]

8 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Fair statement.  But do you think there is something to Liberals demonizing their political opponents?  What do you see as the the root of this? 

I think that both liberals and conservatives demonize their opponents far more than they used to. And I honestly believe that the man who is most responsible for this just died and is the subject of this thread. 

[rockaction 26,100]

22 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I would guess that at this point at least 20 times more conservatives know who Saul Alinsky was than liberals do. 

I still don't know who Saul Alinsky was other than for Glenn Beck. I know of Rules For Radicals. But indeed, it did seem like he was the originator of the leftist movement to personalize politics and go after people first. I think when the Clintons talked about the "politics of personal destruction" back then, I laughed because they were the champion practitioners of it, in deed and in word. My God, the hubris of that charge! Too funny, but all the while sad. And it's no surprise Hillary knew about it.

[tommyGunZ 4,731]

6 hours ago, rockaction said:

It's mind-boggling, this disdain for a talk radio jock who happened to take unpopular positions. 

 Poor little Adolph was just a misguided art student who happened to take unpopular positions.  

[rockaction 26,100]

Just now, timschochet said:

I think that both liberals and conservatives demonize their opponents far more than they used to. And I honestly believe that the man who is most responsible for this just died and is the subject of this thread. 

Bullcrap. Julie Nixon couldn't even have her father attend her graduation from Smith because the students and their friends would have rioted, the story goes. "Up against the wall mother####er!" wasn't just a chant reverberating from police PAs, it originated from the sixties radicals and their personalized treatment of anyone involved in either Johnson's administration or Nixon's. People couldn't get dinner in town because of it. tim, when you generalize without knowing the stories, you really do yourself a disserve. This tactic started on the left in modern times and continues apace.

[rockaction 26,100]

Just now, tommyGunZ said:

 Poor little Adolph was just a misguided art student who happened to take unpopular positions.  

You're on fire. Keep going. You're going to Godwin this whole thing. Mein Kampf!

[tonydead 8,021]

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I think that both liberals and conservatives demonize their opponents far more than they used to. And I honestly believe that the man who is most responsible for this just died and is the subject of this thread. 

You're wrong so often that if you post it you`re discrediting it.   

Edited February 20 by tonydead

[ekbeats 225]

9 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

The current Republican Party platform states that marriage is between one man and one woman, and they oppose gay marriage.  

Where in the Republican platform does it say they oppose gay marriage?

[ekbeats 225]

6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I think that both liberals and conservatives demonize their opponents far more than they used to. And I honestly believe that the man who is most responsible for this just died and is the subject of this thread. 

You don’t think it’s more prevalent on the Left?

[tonydead 8,021]

Lefty be like, "Oh snap, Tim agrees with me.". 

Edited February 20 by tonydead

[AAABatteries 25,234]

7 hours ago, rockaction said:

It's mind-boggling, this disdain for a talk radio jock who happened to take unpopular positions.

I think labeling Rush “a talk radio jock who happened to take unpopular positions” is actually a disservice to the impact he had in politics.  I won’t comment on the type of impact he had but let’s not pretend this guy wasn’t very influential in how many people felt, spoke and acted.