Seriously, what better a way to remind us you're a big, fat, lying
windbag than by spinning a web of misleading crap so vast that it
takes you LONGER THAN AN HOUR TO SAY IT.
I thought about doing a quipfest to Rush Limbaugh's speech at the CPAC conserv-o-rama conference which took place over the weekend in some very Caucasian part of America (made that way by all those Republicans attending the conference). The thing is, the transcript to Rush's speech is too long--it would literally take me weeks to post the entire thing with my quips in small enough chunks that you'd actually want to read it.
So, I'm not going to bother. Rush doesn't deserve to have his words repeated AGAIN. I will repeat a few of them in the interest of being critical of him.
Now, the guy behind the website Donkelphant.com, was covering Rush's speech for his blog that generally tries to be middle-of-the road. He was not pounding on Rush, but he was suggesting that Rush might not be the best person for conservatives to use as their unelected leader. He caught a bit of flack for these comments and that got me thinking once again about, what I think is, the absurdity of being Republican in today's day and age. I thought I had covered all of my bases on Friday with my post "Rant Time: Why are their Still Republicans?" However, after reading some of what Rush had to say, I decided I had to jump back in the ring.
 I've never read the book, but I love the title! Click to buy it now! |
"We conservatives have not done a good enough job of
just laying out basically who we are, because we make the mistake of
assuming that people know. What they know is largely incorrect, based
on the way we're portrayed in pop culture, in the drive-by media, by
the Democrat party," the conservative talk show host told a mostly
young crowd of energized supporters.
Uhhh, which part of "we don't think gays should marry" did we not understand?
How better can you explain it when Republicans tell us they don't think women should be allowed to have abortions? I mean, John McCain, during the 2008 campaign, seemed to think there was a "pro-abortion" movement. He referred to it in one of the debates with his own mouth. Is he part of the drive-by media?
And now that I mention it, aren't YOU part of the drive-by media, Rush? I love the tactic being used by MANY Republicans these days of accusing others of doing the exact same thing they, themselves, are doing. The Daily Show had a thing recently where they pointed out how Bill O'Reilly hated the paparazzi but was OK when his own camera men hounded politicians with cameras. Same thing here--oh, it's the media's fault America doesn't know who conservatives are! But Rush, you work in the media.
Duh.
More from the article:
"We want every American to be the best he or she
chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and
revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence. We believe that the preamble of the Constitution
contains an inarguable truth, that we are all endowed by our creator
with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom --
and the pursuit of happiness," he said, pausing several times for
enthusiastic applause.
You want every American to be white and male and all others can be sub-humans. Seriously, Republicans think women should make less than men for the same work done. Republicans think women should not have control over their bodies. Republicans think gays should not be allowed to have state recognized marriages. Republicans think Islamo Fascism is some sort of threat to America (it isn't). So, I guess the definition Rush and fellow Republicans have for "being the best he or she chooses to be" is an odd one since the above is true. If Republicans really wanted every American to be the best he or she chooses to be, then shouldn't women get paid the same amount, gays be allowed to get married and women be allowed full control over their bodies?
And hey, wait--"the best he or she chooses to be"? Doesn't that mean I can screw up my life on purpose and not suffer for it? If I intentionally choose to have a very low standard of "best," doesn't that mean I can not get a job, get free food, housing and entertainment compliments of the Republican party? Rush says that's what he wants--HIS WORDS. ;)
Oh yeah, Rush, if you "loved and revered our founding documents" you would not have been allowing George W. Bush and pals pee all over them for 8 years. Do you even know what "habeus corpus" means? You are a lying bastard to say that you revere the founding documents for anything but their ability to serve as your toilet paper. Extraordinary renditions? Torture? Unfounded wars based on lies? Are those the things the founding documents protect and support?
More from the article:
"He wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing
the worst each and every day, because that clears the decks for
President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers, which are
abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated. Doesn't matter.
They'll have control of it when it's all over. And that's what they
want," Limbaugh said.
It's like he thinks we're all morons--in fact, I think Rush Limbaugh is one of the most cynical assholes who ever lived. Does he think we have not been paying attention to the "abject failures" that have been running the USA for the last 8 years? Does he think we haven't noticed the way the Bush Administration has trumped up Al Qaeda as some big, bad threat when they're just a bunch of extremists in the desert?
While we were all being told we could be blown to hell by an Extremist Islamic Nuke, our economy was beginning to show the signs of imminent failure. Funny, AQ hasn't done shit to us since 911.
Yet, our way of life is dying all the same.
And Rush is telling us Obama's answers are abject failures.
What GOT US HERE, dipshit?
Proven by history, my ass. OH YES and the Republican answers have been proven successes??
It's literally like Republicans are vampires--incapable of holding up a mirror and seeing themselves reflected in it.
"They see these inequalities, these inequities that
capitalism produces. How do they try to fix it? Do they try to elevate
those at the bottom? No, they try to tear down the people at the
top."
"Elevate... at the bottom?" I think you hypocritical Republicans would likely have a problem with that, wouldn't you? Every time someone wants to give us poor folks a hand-out all you guys want is for us to get a job. Yet here's Rush saying we should be "elevated." What the hell does that even mean, anyway? And since it's the people at the TOP WHO CAUSED THIS MESS aren't they the first who should pay?
Us poor folks didn't cause the economy to crash and bleed out. It was the bankers and the businesses--and the politicians who thought the bankers and the businessmen could be trusted to not get greedy.
I could go on and on and on and on, but I have things to do.
Oh yeah and one last thing--Rush wants Republicans to take back the country? Republicans. Didn't they just have the country for 8 years?
Republicans: Please stay away from Rush Limbaugh. He is saying things that betray you and your beliefs. As an independent, I don't like a lot of what the Democrats are doing any more than I like what the Republicans have done. But Rush is just trying to polarize you. He's trying to manipulate you by using the same tactics he accuses Obama of using.
Think for yourself--learn the truth for yourself. It's hard work, for sure. But if it was easy to think for yourself, everyone would be doing it.
Rush should simply retire. He's already lost his hearing, but his ability to listen was long gone before that. He must have been zonked out on all his prescription drugs during the whole 8 years of Bush. That man ruined all credibility for the GOP. I never like the GOP to begin with, but any appeals they had to common sense and decency (not that they ever had these qualities) went down the drain and into the Potomac with W in Office.
ReplyDeleteshindo’s last blog post: Resplendence: Feuille 38
I had forgotten about his hearing--that explains a lot! Does he know that George W. was even in the White House? Perhaps no one told him?
ReplyDelete;)
But you're totally right. The GOP has already sold it's values down the Potomac river. I just wish he'd shut up so the media would stop covering (or vice versa).
I agree completely with what you're saying, apart from the equal pay for equal work thing -- it feels like a form of welfare that actually undermines the people who do work harder than others. If we all get paid the same, what does it matter how hard we work, or how experienced any of us are if the worst of us makes the same as the best? If there are women who work harder and are more skilled than I am, they deserve to make more than I do, but to mandate that a certain group of people should make more or less money, regardless of the work they do, is inviting a lesson in how communism failed.
ReplyDeleteI think this issue is at the heart of the Republicans' beliefs -- that people should be allowed to succeed without having to carry the people who aren't doing their share. If they focused on giving everyone the tools to improve their lot, rather than simply cut off aid to those who need it for the sake of those who don't, they might have a worthwhile contribution to the country. However, as the party is now, this message would get completely lost amongst all the abortion, gay marriage and Al-Qaeda bullshit.
It is ironic that Republicans were demonizing Islamo-Fascists because they were worried about a group of marginalized religious zealots attacking America's core freedoms. Maybe they just got the religion wrong?
I also don't understand how a group that is such a fan of the free market wants to exert such control over social matters -- shouldn't they take the same hands-off approach to matters of gay marriage and a woman's right to choose and simply let the market decide? Or is it that they have already seen their "anything goes" attitude to its logical conclusion and are afraid of the havoc and (gulp!) change it can wreak. If only greenhouse gases made you gay or bad loans caused abortions, maybe then Republicans would see fit to butt in on matters of actual import.
Tim’s last blog post: Kindle 2: the temperature at which books burn
I can't believe this fuckstick still holds anything that comes close to credibility.
ReplyDeleteUgh. Go away already, Rush.
Tim, I don't think you have a clear understanding of the whole "equal pay" thing. The full name for it is "Equal Pay for Equal Work". This isn't favoring women or removing incentives for men. This is about starting wages being unequal. So, you start a new gig and the woman next to you who does the exact same thing you do gets paid less than you. Not because she's a shittier worker, but because she's got boobs and has no penis.
ReplyDeleteThat's what it's about.
I agree with most of the rest of the stuff you said about the hypocrisy of the Republican party--how can they preach small-government on business but not in our private lives? Good question. I don't understand why we're supposed to let businesses and banks do what they want, but not gay people.
Seriously. Do they know how fucking stupid they all sound?
But thanks for your comment, Tim!
I'm with you on your sentiment, John. Frankly I don't know why anyone with an "(R)" next to their name has any credibility anymore. I know no one in government has any credibility with me, that's for sure.
Yeah, I talked about the equal pay for equal work thing with Jen, but I still don't get it. There are other people who do the same kind of work I do, and our wages do tend to vary, even within the same company -- why should it matter whether it's a woman doing the job or a man when there are still so many other factors that go into what a person earns?
ReplyDeleteMaybe I have the issue framed wrong, because the way it looks now doesn't add up.
You ask "why should it matter whether it’s a woman doing the job or a man when there are still so many other factors that go into what a person earns?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question, but it seems to matter to some employers and that's not really fair. My question is: what other factors go into how much a person makes? Usually it's just "do they do their job well or not?"
But, again, if a woman *starts* her job at a lower rate than a man starts it at, she's at a disadvantage for the rest of her time at that company. I'm not sure what you don't understand.
Imagine running a race around a track. The finish line is the same place for both you and your competitor, but she is a woman. She starts twenty feet behind you but you both hear the starter pistol at the same time.
Now imagine that you're both running at the same speed (give or take a bit) and your boss gives you a jet pack, while your female competitor is given nothing.
This kind of thing happens in workplaces all the time. In fact for a long time it was standard practice that women got paid less than men for performing the exact same duties at the exact same levels of competence.
I hope that's a bit more clear.
It still seems there are a lot of other factors, like if women work cheaper and do the same job, wouldn't men be unemployable since they're just too expensive? Isn't this why jobs get outsourced in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI dunno, what do you think is the solution?
Haha, you're speaking logically--if humans were logical, the equal work done would get equal pay automatically.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I guess that was my first mistake. ;)
ReplyDelete