Modern day liberalism boils down to the tolerance of oppression.

Because Republicans need someone telling them what their opinion is? Or they need to be told how right and oppressed they are? :)

Yeah, I sometimes wonder why.

And about dissing people, 2 words: Michael Moore.

So be careful what argument you make. :)

Limbaugh articulates intelligently what many Republicans feel.
That's why his callers say "Ditto" so often.
Or why he named his webcam the DittoCam.

Yup, some people are annoyed by Michael Moore.
Like me for instance ;)

Dusting off an old thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8690800&postcount=38
 
Man, if that's an intelligent articulation of the feelings that the Republicans are experiencing, then I ain't getting near one any time soon.
 
Limbaugh articulates intelligently what many Republicans feel.
That's why his callers say "Ditto" so often.
Or why he named his webcam the DittoCam.

Yup, some people are annoyed by Michael Moore.
Like me for instance ;)

Dusting off an old thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8690800&postcount=38

Let me spell it out.

Rightwingers attack MM personally. So if you derive a conclusion from that for RL, you should draw the same conclussion for MM.

Articulates intelligently, that was a good one :)

If you look me (well Darwin) in the eyes (well, pink shades) and tell me straight up that the arsegravy Limbo spouts in the clip behind that link is coming from someone who is capable of articulating anything intelligently, I would advise you to quit your dayjob and go for a professional poker career.
 
How dare liberals be intolerant of marginalizing gays because they don't jive with my version of Skycake!
 
I just have to say that I never thought I would see those three words in sequence...

Limbaugh articulates intelligently...

I can't really get my head around that concept.

Even before the GOP ran me out I thought Limbaugh was a raving lunatic.
 
Articulates intelligently, that was a good one :)

If you look me (well Darwin) in the eyes (well, pink shades) and tell me straight up that the arsegravy Limbo spouts in the clip behind that link is coming from someone who is capable of articulating anything intelligently, I would advise you to quit your dayjob and go for a professional poker career.

Ah, his latest controversy.

Might as well link the whole transcript instead of "quote...quote" taken out of context.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/12/robin_williams_and_the_pop_culture_media

Spoiler :
CALLER: Yeah. My pleasure. You know, I don't want to sound insensitive, and Robin Williams was absolutely a wonderful talent. But, you know, it used to be that the media would sort of downplay celebrity suicide, which I think was actually a good and right thing. I just feel like they're making a huge deal about this when there's so much other news like Iraq, Israel, Missouri, et cetera, that they should be focusing on. My question is, what do you think the political reason for their doing this is?

RUSH: Well, interesting question. You know, I'm the guy that says there's politics in everything and you've gotta be able to spot it, and you're right, there is here. This really is an example of the dedication the media has to pop culture events and how important it is in the eyes of their audience. Whereas in Washington, the media thinks the world is on fire because of what's happening in the Middle East, your average TMZ viewer thinks the world doesn't make any sense anymore because Robin Williams committed suicide.

The thing I worry about, I really do, they're making such heroism out of this that I hope it doesn't inspire a lot of copycats by people seeking the same kind of fame. And that's been one of my big concerns with social media from the get-go. I saw all these people just giving up every bit of information about themselves, just this desire to have everybody know everything about them, and we know that one of the allures of pop culture media is this desire to be famous and have pop culture media talk about you. And this is one way to do it, obviously. To kill yourself is one way to get the media to spend a lot of time talking about you, if you want to be talked about. I hope it doesn't spawn a bunch of copycats.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So our last caller from Des Plaines, Illinois, wanted to know, "What is the politics in the coverage of the suicide of Robin Williams?" Well, I believe there is some. But I don't think that the politics is driving it. I think there was, on the part of media and Hollywood, genuine affection for the guy that is driving it, but there is politics. If you notice the coverage is focused on how much he had, but it wasn't enough.

"He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn't." Now, what is the left's worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist worldview, it's one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They're never happy, are they? They're always angry about something. No matter what they get, they're always angry.

They are animated in large part by the false promises of America, because the promises of America are not for everyone, as we see each and every day. I mean, right here there's a story on the Fox News website. Do you know, it says right here, that the real reasons that Robin Williams killed himself are he was embarrassed at having to take television roles after a sterling movie career.

He had to take movie roles that were beneath him, sequels and so forth, and he finally had to do television just to get a paycheck because he was in so much financial distress. He'd had some divorces that ripped up his net worth, and he had a big ranch in Napa that he couldn't afford any longer and had to put up for sale, and a house in Tiburon that he couldn't afford anymore. This is all what's in the Fox News story.

He had it all, but he had nothing. He made everybody else laugh but was miserable inside. I mean, it fits a certain picture, or a certain image that the left has. Talk about low expectations and general unhappiness and so forth. Right here it says that one the contributing factors to Robin Williams deciding to kill himself was "survivor's guilt." It's in the headline.

I read that and I thought, "Survivor's guilt? What? What survivor's guilt? What?" So I read it, and it turns out that three of his closest friends, the story says -- Christopher Reeve, John Belushi, and Andy Kaufman... The source, unnamed in the story, said that Robin Williams felt guilty that he was still alive while his three friends had died young and much earlier than he had.

He could never get over the guilt that they died and he didn't.

Well, that is a constant measurement that is made by political leftists in judging the country. It's outcome-based education: 2 + 2 = 5. "That's fine until the student learns it's 4. We're not gonna humiliate the student by pointing out that he's wrong. If he figures it out, cool. We're gonna take the fast learners and we're gonna slow them down so that they don't humiliate the kids that don't learn as fast as they do. It's just not fair."

So the bottom line is here is it's reported that he died, which is true, but he actually committed suicide. I just really hope that this coverage does not spawn copycats, because the coverage is fawning and glorious, and positive. You have so many people on social media who so desperately want fame. You know it and I know it.

People are voluntarily telling everybody every detail about themselves, casting every aspect of their privacy aside just because they want fame. They want to be noticed. They all want to be on TV. There's a lot of fame and the media's doing every story about this is a story of greatness -- unparalleled, unequaled, unique greatness.

I mean, everybody would love to be spoken of the way the media's speaking of Robin Williams today and last night, and I really hope -- 'cause there's some very fragile people out there -- people don't try to emulate or get this kind of notoriety for themselves by doing the same thing.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Clearly he is analyzing the media coverage of Robin William's death.
Why they reported on his suicide the way they did.

The only comment he had about Robin William's death itself was that he hoped there were no copycats from all the media attention.

Rush Limbaugh's response the following day:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2..._media_coverage_of_the_robin_williams_suicide

Spoiler :
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: After 26 years of being misquoted, purposely taken out of context, misreported upon, lied about, some of this stuff now is beginning to get to the point I need to comment on it. Most days I just let it go by, not wanting to elevate it. But what the left, and particularly the leftist media, is attempting to do in twisting my comments about the Robin Williams suicide yesterday cannot go unnoticed. In fact, I didn't even know that I was on the hot seat 'til I got an e-mail about 20 minutes ago about all the crap I was getting. I said, "What crap?"

I was sent a series of links all spawned by Media Matters. Media Matters took it all out of context and then fed all these other outlets, and they ran with it. The upshot is that all of these media people think I am just a reprobate, a cold, heartless guy because I accused Robin Williams of committing suicide because he was a liberal. And I did no such thing. I don't know why he committed suicide. This is my point. And neither do they. They are the ones trying to tell us why. They are the ones trying to explain it. They are the ones justifying it. They are the ones glorifying it.

What I did yesterday was express some real concern over the fact that the way they are glorifying this -- and I made this clear that I'm not comfortable with the glorification of suicide. Life is too precious. We all only get one. And I was worried about this, the coverage of all this leading to copycats, people wanting to get the same kind of treatment in the media, in the pop culture media. People seeking the same kind of laudatory coverage, greatness, genius, all of this stuff. I thought it was irresponsible the way this was being covered yesterday because they don't know, either, why he committed suicide.

So what I did was analyze the coverage, which is what I do every day on this program, is analyze who the left is. I didn't presume to know why Robin Williams committed suicide. I didn't know yesterday, and I don't know today. But they do. They claim to know. All these people giving me the business claim they know why. And it was that that I was analyzing.

Now, I want to go back. We have about two and a half minutes of what I said yesterday. I want to replay it for you, even though you were here and heard it. This is what's being taken out of context, and, as you will hear, this is about media coverage and my analysis of it and ancillary, related things. But all of these low-rent, despicable, irresponsible, pathetic so-called media watchdogs on the left are trying to make it sound like I said that Robin Williams gave up because he was a liberal, and he's hopelessly doomed to misery and despair because that's what liberals are devoted to. And I said no such thing.

Here it is. And then, after this, I have some backup. I have some, as Lanny Davis would say, "poof." Some drop-down proof that what I was telling you yesterday about these people, the way they do this, coverage this, talk about it, is true. Sit tight for that.

Here's what I said yesterday that's being totally distorted, taken out of context -- and predictably so, by the way. I should have known yesterday. I should have given you a heads-up it was gonna happen. Here it is.

Media Matters makes a living off of listening to Rush Limbaugh's every word and trying to make hay out of it.


That may be true. But he's also a master liar. And he never tells the truth where a lie will do.

Are we talking about a radio host or The Devil? :devil:
 
It's important to understand that my rights end where yours begin. This kind of nuance evades "conservatives," (who we really ought to start calling reactionaries or traditionalists, as if we were "conserving" anything it wouldn't involve radical deregulation and the institutionalization of traditional social norms) however, because so much "conservative" polemic is articulated in hard and fast, good and evil terms, which appeal to rural populations with monosyllabic vocabularies.

Am I dragging "Middle America" through the mud? You bet. Anti-intellectual thought is not something we should cherish or encourage, unless we're going to endorse some kind of Fahrenheit 451-esque dystopia. Stop romanticizing bigoted, ignorant people, period paragraph.
 
I prefer the phrase "anti egghead superiority complex resulting from isolation in ivory towers."
 
I prefer the phrase "anti egghead superiority complex resulting from isolation in ivory towers."

Except you don't. You have as little tolerance for people simplifying issues down to a yes/no dichotomy as anyone else here. Entertaining pretense though. :goodjob:
 
I prefer the phrase "anti egghead superiority complex resulting from isolation in ivory towers."

There is nothing virtuous or desirable about slagging intellectualism because you find yourself reaching different conclusions than the majority of the academia. The proper response to this kind of thing is to encourage "conservative" thinkers to express their ideas eloquently and through the same channels that supposedly mainstream and consensus-backed "liberals" do.

European fascists had a better track record with the intelligentsia than the contemporary GOP and they actually used slogans like "Death to intellectuals."

American crypto-fascists/reactionary ideologues should take note: there are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who are just as racist, sexist and homophobic as the dregs of our society.
 
It's important to understand that my rights end where yours begin. This kind of nuance evades "conservatives," (who we really ought to start calling reactionaries or traditionalists, as if we were "conserving" anything it wouldn't involve radical deregulation and the institutionalization of traditional social norms) however, because so much "conservative" polemic is articulated in hard and fast, good and evil terms, which appeal to rural populations with monosyllabic vocabularies.

Am I dragging "Middle America" through the mud? You bet. Anti-intellectual thought is not something we should cherish or encourage, unless we're going to endorse some kind of Fahrenheit 451-esque dystopia. Stop romanticizing bigoted, ignorant people, period paragraph.

Yes, we all want robots who can think for themselves. As long as thought does not go against it's programming?
 
I guess it is only virtuous when you...

Make sweeping generalizations like "rural populations with monosyllabic vocabularies"
Equate Middle America's population with being "bigoted, ignorant people"
View some people as "dregs of society"

And you wonder why there is antagonism towards elitists (yes, I do it too.)
 
I guess it is only virtuous when you...

Make sweeping generalizations like "rural populations with monosyllabic vocabularies"
Equate Middle America's population with being "bigoted, ignorant people"
View some people as "dregs of society"

And you wonder why there is antagonism towards elitists (yes, I do it too.)

Time out captain.

The reference was 'appealing to rural populations with monosyllabic vocabularies', not a generalization about all rural populations. Those same appeals unfortunately work on urban populations with monosyllabic vocabularies. The problem he is pointing out is that there is a very strong political current towards directly appealing to the least educated by targeting that very fact.

STOP romanticizing bigoted ignorant people. That seems like a good idea to me. Is it done in middle America? You betcha, as one of those romanticized bigoted ignorant people is so fond of saying. Does middle America hold some exclusivity there? No, but it is objectively speaking more widely accepted there. 'Playing dumb' is a very dangerous game for politicians in California, for example. Reagan managed a certain amount of 'aw shucks' charm, but trying to follow that act is a recipe for disaster.

Why did Bill Clinton have to downplay having been a Rhodes' scholar? Why did the republican party think they would get traction by calling Obama an intellectual?
 
This thread is silly because the modern progressive movement is based on ending oppression and the distinct intolerance of oppression.
 
This thread is silly because the modern progressive movement is based on ending oppression and the distinct intolerance of oppression.

Don't you realize that we're oppressing the oppressors. It's tyranny when the wealthy are forced to provide their workers a minimum wage, and when members of the majority religion can't intimidate other faiths into gathering in secret. It's also tyranny when racial minorities start expecting to have the same rights and privileges as members of the majority ethnicity.

Democracy is mob rule and the mob is white, Christian and speaks English! :band:
 
Back
Top Bottom