Limbaugh & The National Security State
Published by Mike Stark February 2nd, 2006 in Podcast, Rush LimbaughThis wasn’t the best Limbaugh work I’ve heard, but again, I hope it penetrated some of the simian noggins atop the shoulders of those that make up his listening base….
What was particularly nice about this call, however, is his response – a quintessential non-response. The point of my call was that the same folks that railed for so long against the “excesses of the Janet Reno led Clinton Justice department” seem to be singing a different tune now that Commander Codpiece heads up the executive… be that as it may, whatever precedent is set now, well, it’ll still be standing when the next Democrat takes office**… so…
Rush didn’t address that issue.
**There may very well be a caveat. The Supreme Court is famous for making partisan decisions that apply only one time. If this case makes its way to the SC, will anyone be surprised if the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas court decides that, for now, while in an excited state of terror, the executive has unfettered powers to do anything – include sodomize bunnies – if he deems it necessary to protect Americuns?
Of course, the state of terror will surely end, according to these jokes in robes, when the next Dem takes the executive. Just sayin’.
6 Responses to “Limbaugh & The National Security State”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Call Tony back and thank him. If it wasn’t for him, no one would have read this. Now, you have your first comment!
Get the facts…for your own sake. I hate to be negative but this site really is lame. Do you have some weird thing against talk show hosts?
I’m sorry I wasted your and my time on this.
One really can’t cut a short clip from any talk show (Rush or otherwise) and make a decent point. I was listening to Rush during this little “episode”. Doing some framing yourself or taking the clip completely out of context can change the sound bite into whatever you need. That’s the problem with this entire website. The only way to honestly combat talk radio is if one goes back and listens to the entire show or segment so the host’s argument is in context. The few seconds you got to make your argument are almost completely irrelavent in the format you have it here.
If you wanted to address the entire segment and then lay out your argument, that would make more sense…but unfortunatly probably not happen. For this approach to be successful would require the cognitive activity (backed by solid FACTS) that is seemingly nonexistant from arguments arising from most politicians and the left. Also, success would require that you get over your ego and humbly realize that Tony Snow’s graciousness toward you this morning precipitated my comment here. And that most people could care less about each time you talk to a show host, and (from what I’ve seen here this morning) most wouldn’t spend a fleeting moment on this lame website.
I usually don’t read blogs but I must say this would be easier to read if you worked on your writing some too. Simply put, Rush crushed you. You reinforced his point for him, right here…and it doesn’t seem you know it!
TJ,
It says it right there at the top right:
Liars, distorters and men of ill-repute must be confronted…
It’s not about a well reasoned response to the bloviators on the radio. There are plenty of these about. I don’t presume to speak for Mike (and I must apologize for missing the meetup in DC yesterday) but his point is to meet them on their own ground. Get in some quick jabs and maybe make a wingnut or two think.
Yes, there are some problems. No, Mike is not perfect, but if you read his posts on dailyKos, you’ll see that he is improving his craft.
Thanks for the feedback TJ.
Yeah, I like Tony Snow… He takes my calls every week, and as much of a Republican as he is, he is engaging and respectful.
You might learn something from him.
But you are right. I do have a rather large ego. I sure wish I could be more humble… like Rush is. But it’s hard to be humble when you are always right…
Anyway, keep listening. I’ll keep calling.
Great website, great idea, and great calls. I give you props for even MAKING IT ON to the shows. their screeners are the worse. Keep hitting them where it hurts, plus you need an army of callers to balance out those fools. They can’t stand the truth. The liberal shows speak with facts, the kool-aid kids speak with shit they pull out of their asses that crumbles in a serious debate.
Keep kicking ass.
Nice work Mike! I like this site.
One really can’t cut a short clip from any talk show (Rush or otherwise) and make a decent point. I was listening to Rush during this little “episode”. Doing some framing yourself or taking the clip completely out of context can change the sound bite into whatever you need.
Care to explain exactly how Rush was taken out of context or are you just full of crap?
For this approach to be successful would require the cognitive activity (backed by solid FACTS) that is seemingly nonexistant from arguments arising from most politicians and the left.
TJ, here’s some information backed up by facts:
Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict who routinely mis-states facts. He makes a joke out of our public discourse and is bad for this country.
Also, success would require that you get over your ego and humbly realize that Tony Snow’s graciousness toward you this morning precipitated my comment here.
Wow dude, get over yourself. Your comment was not insightful and it contributed nothing. It was certainly no substitute for an articulate opposing viewpoint.
And that most people could care less about each time you talk to a show host, and (from what I’ve seen here this morning) most wouldn’t spend a fleeting moment on this lame website.
And yet, here we are. You included.
Get the facts…for your own sake. I hate to be negative but this site really is lame. Do you have some weird thing against talk show hosts?
I’m sorry I wasted your and my time on this.
What are the facts he should get? You tell Mike to get facts and offer nothing yourself but opinion. Your preemptive apology for the post that followed was a nice touch, though. Thanks!
I usually don’t read blogs but I must say this would be easier to read if you worked on your writing some too.
And without a hint of irony. Bravo!
Simply put, Rush crushed you. You reinforced his point for him, right here…and it doesn’t seem you know it!
Babbling a kooky opinion without even attempting to provide evidence. Typical wingnuttery.
Let me show you how it’s done:
In the clip, Rush claims that “I think that most Americans privacy rights are violated by what they have to turn over to the IRS every year about themselves than whatever this NSA project is going to show about them - most peoples privacy rights are violated right there.”
Rush is conflating two separate and dis-similar issues. The legality of the IRS collection of information for taxation purposes is not in question here. The comparison might make sense if it was revealed that the IRS was illegally eavesdropping on taxpayers for the purposes of catching tax evaders, but this is not the case. His comparison is a kooky diversion and he’s playing his listeners for rubes when he makes it.
Rush continues, “But I think it’s a straw dog. (strange babbling noises) You’re you’re you’re unfortunately falling into a trap. You’r assuming the president has broken the law. And you’re assuming it because your Democrat buddies say so. The President says that he hasn’t broken the law, the he’s totally legal in doing (so)… furthermore he welcomes the hearings into this because he knows it’s goind to end up like everythin else the Democrats are trying to scandalize. They’re gonna have egg on their face and they’re going to be embarrassed all over the country by it.”
Shorter Rush Limbaugh: “It’s not illegal because the President says it isn’t.”
If only Richard Nixon had thought of that! Who needs the judicial and legislative branches of government when we have the all powerful W? But seriously, does the President have the power to declare what is legal and what is illegal?
And here’s a minor point of contention regarding his use of strawdog, which “occurs when a deliberately constructed straw man turns out to be the truth.” Is this really what Rush is trying to say or is there another definition of straw dog that I am unaware of?
.