Rush Limbaugh

[SD26]

Michael J. Fox said he deliberately does not take his medicine sometimes in order to make a more dramatic case for his disease. This is what Rush was referring to. The msm, being dishonest and/or lazy, somehow missed that.

Rush's fundamental flaw is his religiosity. But, as a human being, he's a very good person, and a very courageous person.

Both outstanding points.

He stands up for what he understands, and he will discuss with others their alternative views. Often, he's the target for many, a target for those that are supposed to support free speech. Honestly, it's strange. He's used to being called the villain. Must be pretty thick skinned.

As for being "religious"? I understand he believe in God, but I don't recognize him as being affiliated with any religion.

[Jake_Ellison]

As for being "religious"? I understand he believe in God, but I don't recognize him as being affiliated with any religion.

Why is that a mitigating factor?

[SD26]

Why is that a mitigating factor?

A religion would have a set of specific values or codes that might guide an individuals course of action. Let's say "Keep holy the sabbath", for example. So, that individual may deem their duty for that day to not work, etc. Whatever the religion may say. Don't eat pork.

An individual recognition of a force that is beyond mathematical, physical, measureable, etc. form that is responsible for directing something... That doesn't develop a shared value other than the faith that there might be a better explanation than many, many, many, and many coincidences of large proportions occuring to get things to a particular point. Life, specifically, is currently unique.

That "recognition" does not evade looking for more information to continue the search for more answers on how's, why's, or what's. It's very dissimilar to much of the "consensus on global climate change" where Mr Gore's ideology is set in a religious tone of "there is no reason for more study" and guilt. A belief in a god possibility doesn't eliminate anything or recognize guilt, does it? It only does under the concept of religion.

Your thoughts?

[SD26]

Ah, from Wikipedia...LOL! I don't like using it as a source, but it appears to be relevant.

# I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals.

# We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security.

# We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the War on Terrorism.

# And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation — the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

# We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles.

This was in the WSJ in 2005 from Rush.

[K-Mac]

Well, then you've obviously never met a Republican who said they'd throw you in jail if it was up to them like I have.

I've never met one either and I was a conservative, Republican (although not religious) from Houston, Texas (a hot bed of religious conservatism.) Neither me nor any other conservative/Republican, or even Christian, I've ever met in my entire 35.5 years has ever said that. I'm not saying those people don't exist, but c'mon. You obviously encountered a rare and radical extremist and most people are not that way. For you to judge an entire group of people based on that crack pot's opinion is asinine.

[Jake_Ellison]

A belief in a god possibility doesn't eliminate anything or recognize guilt, does it? It only does under the concept of religion.

Your thoughts?

A belief in God eliminates the possibility of sobscribing to logic and reason. In organized religion or outside of it.

In fact the only thing that is good sometimes about peaceful religious groups (especially in places with no stable government, like Africa) is the fact that they are organized, and the most evil thing about them is that they advocate faith in God.

[SD26]

A belief in God eliminates the possibility of subscribing to logic and reason. In organized religion or outside of it.

In fact the only thing that is good sometimes about peaceful religious groups (especially in places with no stable government, like Africa) is the fact that they are organized, and the most evil thing about them is that they advocate faith in God.

I disagree that a belief in God eliminates the possibility of subscribing to logic and reason. Why would you say that that belief requires eliminating logic and reason?

I race motorcycles. There are things that I can't explain. I believe in God. That belief doesn't eliminate my need for data and the opportunities to apply my craft to that data in addition to recognizing new patterns that I don't understand. My understanding and movement forward is my production, my work. I can't look at an issue such as random occurences as "an act of God". They exist, and it is my job to understand, overcome with adjustments, or ride around them...all of them requiring logic and reason.

Additionally, my belief in God doesn't change my embracing of Objectivism as being morally correct in my mind. In the end, I control what I do every day. I write my own destiny.

Edited March 16, 2009 by SD26

[K-Mac]

A belief in God eliminates the possibility of sobscribing to logic and reason. In organized religion or outside of it.

I agree that it can eliminate the use of logic and reason in a person's life, particularly in certain aspects of someone's life, but I disagree that it eliminates it entirely. I know many people who claim to believe in God, yet they do not live by the strict word of the Bible, "thank god!" They can be quite rational when it comes to their income, their jobs, taxes, government, etc., but then go crazy on other issues like abortion and such.

[gags]

I've dealt with many people who hold to an illogical belief in God while relying on logic and reason in other areas or aspects of their lives. In virtually every society, the vast majority of people believe in God. If that fact alone eliminated the possibility of their subscribing to reason, mankind would have become extinct many years ago.

[Jake_Ellison]

I agree that it can eliminate the use of logic and reason in a person's life

I am unaware of human beings wo had logic and reason eliminated from their lives. It would make life very difficult, especially with all the buses around-these people would be wondering into traffic and becoming roadkill all the time, not unlike this fella'.

But of course, I wouldn't suggest such a thing. What I said was that it eliminates the possibility to subscribe to logic and reason.

[SD26]

I know many people who claim to believe in God, yet they do not live by the strict word of the Bible.

Does the belief in a supreme being require a bible, etc? I don't see where it is mandetory. Nor does it even require a church, a church in the actual traditional definition meaning "community".

What I said was that it eliminates the possibility to subscribe to logic and reason.

Ok, Jake, so you're saying that it is God or a belief in God that eliminates the possibility to subscribe to logic and reason?

[Jake_Ellison]

Ok, Jake, so you're saying that it is God or a belief in God that eliminates the possibility to subscribe to logic and reason?

The latter, of course. According to logic, you have to first see evidence of the existence of something, and only then can you consider it as part of reality. Believing in something arbitrary, like any one of the many variations of God, contradicts that rule. Since there are no contradictions, you can't both believe in God and subscribe to the rules of logic.

For details(Rand on TV)

Edited March 16, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Thales]

Both outstanding points.

He stands up for what he understands, and he will discuss with others their alternative views. Often, he's the target for many, a target for those that are supposed to support free speech. Honestly, it's strange. He's used to being called the villain. Must be pretty thick skinned.

As for being "religious"? I understand he believe in God, but I don't recognize him as being affiliated with any religion.

He believes in god and acts on those beliefs. He also believes that religion is necessary to be moral. In his favor, he seems to be more reason driven than faith driven, which is why so many Objectivists like him, but the elements of faith are there. When he gets on a religious tangent, he's pretty awful to listen to.

[SD26]

The latter, of course. According to logic, you have to first see evidence of the existence of something, and only then can you consider it as part of reality. Believing in something arbitrary, like any one of the many variations of God, contradicts that rule. Since there are no contradictions, you can't both believe in God and subscribe to the rules of logic.

A belief in God does not stand in the way of my gaining knowledge, nor does it give me an ability to deny knowledge. I do not recognize where it is related to logic. As you say, it is arbitrary, can neither be proven nor disproven, so it is to be ignored, or really just set aside until more data is available.

[Jake_Ellison]

A belief in God does not stand in the way of my gaining knowledge, nor does it give me an ability to deny knowledge.

What would that knowledge be based on? Gain knowledge using what methods, and why those specific methods and not some other ones?

[K-Mac]

Does the belief in a supreme being require a bible, etc? I don't see where it is mandatory. Nor does it even require a church, a church in the actual traditional definition meaning "community".

No and I didn't mean to suggest it did. I was merely stating that many Americans, I know, who consider themselves religious, do not follow a strict interpretation of their religion.

At any rate, my point still stands. If you practice any sort of mysticism, you're eventually going to give up some of your logic and rationality to your higher power, even if it's something as simple as saying, "all things happen for a reason" or "it was destiny." That being said, I don't think most people give up all their logic and reason just because they believe in some higher power.

I guess if you gave up all your logic and reason for a higher power, you'd be a suicide bomber??

[Mammon]

Michael J. Fox said he deliberately does not take his medicine sometimes in order to make a more dramatic case for his disease. This is what Rush was referring to. The msm, being dishonest and/or lazy, somehow missed that.

The shacking is a side effect of the medicine, it's side effects are also very volatile. Micheal J. Fox explained this in an interview that was on an "MSM" network.

He said he is FAKING it. Faking it. I'm sure Rush spent years in medical school and working with patients of Parkinson's to identify the proper symptoms of the disease-- oh wait never mind, he spent years being an ass on the radio instead. But I do think Rush would know a thing or two about being on or off medicine seeing as how he abuses pills himself.

Also, lord forbid Micheal J. Fox tries to make a dramatic case for a disease many (especially Rush and his audience) don't understand. I'm pretty sure that fat, cigar-smoking, fuck has no idea what it's like to suffer like Fox does. He'd do better to just shut the fuck up and listen.

However, I think Rush and the rest of the Republicans certainly enjoy seeing people suffer seeing as they oppose the advancement of science and medicine because of their own metaphysical delusions. Either that or that are too clueless to care.

Rush's fundamental flaw is his religiosity. But, as a human being, he's a very good person, and a very courageous person.

That's it? A little religion, but other than that making fun of someone with a life destroying disease makes somebody a very good and courageous person?

I should pop some pills and go tell a kid with Down-syndrome that he is faking it, and his mental inabilities qualify him for a nomination on the Democratic ticket. Then I'd get praised as a hero for America, conserativism and capitalism!

I can be the new face of the Republican party!

[Mammon]

I saw this Youtube comment on the video I linked.(I was looking for a fuller version but all I found was this and several dumb "remixes" of it, so I apologize for not having the full thing.)

I agree. THis is completely shameless of M.J. Fox. He is your typical shameless democrat. Now that Osama is in office they are going to kill more babies so M.J. Shakey dont shake as much any more. M.J we all know it is an act you libby swine. We are not that stupid and shameless. YOu just like to kill babies because your a liberal. I have class like Rush. I don't go out and start shaking around so I can have 39 babies killed in my name. I hope you shake yourself to hell. You shameless fool

Yep. This is exactly the type of person who's rational, reasonable and freedom loving enough to understand the off-hand references to Rand that Limbaugh makes.

[Jake_Ellison]

The shacking is a side effect of the medicine...

Not true.

[TheEgoist]

Haha, I hope I rack up a good list of "dead babies" in my life.

And as for Rush being a good person, I think Mammon demonstrated quite well he is not a good person. In fact, it would seem he is a very bad person who mocks those with diseases for political entertainment and condemns drug addict, supports the war on drugs while at the same time illegally possessing and using pain killers. Hypocrisy in normal life is bad, but on a scale where you have a real influence of people's opinions on drug addicts...It's just that much worse.

[Thales]

The shacking is a side effect of the medicine, it's side effects are also very volatile. Micheal J. Fox explained this in an interview that was on an "MSM" network.

Apparently in his book he says he will not use his medication in order to make a more dramatic case for the disease. I personally have nothing against him doing that, although it is good to be honest about it.

He said he is FAKING it. Faking it. I'm sure Rush spent years in medical school and working with patients of Parkinson's to identify the proper symptoms of the disease-- oh wait never mind, he spent years being an ass on the radio instead. But I do think Rush would know a thing or two about being on or off medicine seeing as how he abuses pills himself.

That is a 37 second clip from MSNBC. msnbc, are you kidding me? That’s as biased a network as there is. Also, that clip has clearly been heavily edited.

It’s been over two years and I'm impressed I remember the details as well as I did: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessent...mjf0.guest.html

However, I think Rush and the rest of the Republicans certainly enjoy seeing people suffer seeing as they oppose the advancement of science and medicine because of their own metaphysical delusions. Either that or that are too clueless to care.

Rush does care about people a great deal and he does wish people the best. I know this from having listened to him since about 1993. I think that long stretch trumps your 37 second, heavily edited clip from an insanely biased network.

Obviously I disagree fundamentally with Rush on his position on this matter, but I like to deal with the ideas, not some side issue.

[Mammon]

Not true.

Oh. Well, apparently your like Limbaugh and have no regard for looking up the facts before you just assert things. Here's a couple minutes worth of research you should of done...

From: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/parkinson...ments-and-drugs

Levodopa.

The most effective Parkinson's drug is levodopa, which is a natural substance that we all have in our body. When taken by mouth in pill form, it passes into the brain and is converted to dopamine. Levodopa is combined with carbidopa to create the combination drug Sinemet. The carbidopa protects levodopa from premature conversion to dopamine outside the brain; in doing that, it also prevents nausea. In Europe, levodopa is combined with a similar substance, benserazide, and is marketed as Madopar.

As the disease progresses, the benefit from levodopa may become less stable, with a tendency to wax and wane ("wearing off"). This then requires medication adjustments. Levodopa side effects include confusion, delusions and hallucinations, as well as involuntary movements called dyskinesia. These resolve with dose reduction, but sometimes at the expense of reduced parkinsonism control.

From Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskinesia

In the context of Parkinson's disease, dyskinesias are often the result of chronic levodopa (L-dopa) therapy. These motor fluctuations occur in more than half of PD patients after 5 to 10 years of levodopa therapy, with the percentage of affected patients increasing over time.[1] Dyskinesias most commonly occur at the time of peak L-dopa plasma concentrations and are thus referred to as peak-dose dyskinesias. As patients advance, they may evidence diphasic dyskinesias, which occur when the drug concentration rises or falls. Attempts to moderate dyskinesias by the use of other treatments such as bromocriptine appear to have been unsuccessful. [2] In order to avoid dyskinesia, patients with the young-onset form of the disease (YOPD) are often hesitant to commence L-dopa therapy until absolutely necessary for fear of suffering severe dyskinesia.

Patients with severe dyskinesia resulting from high doses of parkinsonian medication may benefit from deep brain stimulation (DBS), which benefits the patient in two ways. Firstly, DBS allows a reduction in L-dopa dosage of 50-60% (thus tackling the underlying cause). Secondly, DBS treatment itself (in the subthalamic nucleus or globus pallidus) can reduce dyskinesias. [3]

The use of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has been shown to enhance the effects of L-Dopa while reducing the associated dyskinesia in primates with simulated Parkinson's disease.[4]

And the symptoms of Parkinson's, from Wikipedia.

It is characterized by muscle rigidity, tremor, a slowing of physical movement (bradykinesia) and, in extreme cases, a loss of physical movement (akinesia).

In a nutshell, Parkinson's results in the victim not being able to move. The drugs make you move, but overcompensate, obviously. No one wants to have to suffer through that unless it's absolutely necessary and in Micheal J. Fox's case, it is. It's probably incredibly difficult for him to do ads and interviews in this state.

To say he is faking it, or exaggerating it is lower than low. To say he is doing because he is OFF the medication is just plain, fucking stupid. But I wouldn't expect anymore from Limbaugh.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Mammon

[Mammon]

Haha, I hope I rack up a good list of "dead babies" in my life.

And as for Rush being a good person, I think Mammon demonstrated quite well he is not a good person. In fact, it would seem he is a very bad person who mocks those with diseases for political entertainment and condemns drug addict, supports the war on drugs while at the same time illegally possessing and using pain killers. Hypocrisy in normal life is bad, but on a scale where you have a real influence of people's opinions on drug addicts...It's just that much worse.

What I don't understand is how it's so easy to show Rush as being an incompetent, asshole-bully and yet their are so many Objectivists who basically say, "His religious comments irk me, but other than that I like him"

Is that all it takes to get Objectivists to like you? Just throw in a few blurbs about free-markets and an Ayn Rand quote and they seemingly drop any standards of decency they had to give you undeserved respect.

I wonder if I said something like "Throw the fucking queers, homos, and niggers in the gas chambers because they are parasites of the free-market and God only likes white people, fuck yeah CAPITALISM! ATLAS IS GOING SHRUG OFF BABY KILLING FAGGOTS" what the response would be?*

"Besides the God comment, this guy has good views because he said parasites are bad and likes capitalism and Ayn Rand"

Granted, Rush isn't that bad. The point is to ask the question, why do some Objectivists seem to lower their standards when someone agrees with them on an issue? And to what extent are they willing to lower their standards? What extent to they reserve their judgment, evade the reality of mixed premises, false moralities and hypocritical agendas?

It just seems like this is so common with conservative commentators. Some Objectivists trump up every little factual mistake, or snide comment any liberal commentator will make, but rush to the defense of every conservative commentator.

Where are the principals? Where is the Objectivity?

Rush is an asshole regardless of how many agreeable comments he may make from time to time. I judge Limbaugh in the same vein that I judge Micheal Moore. Sometimes they both say reasonable things, somethings they both make factual errors... but their particular political leanings have no effect on my overall judgment of them. If they say something wrong, stupid, or rude, I still take note of that.

In Rush's case I'm not going to forget about it because he plugs Rand occasionally. Maybe that makes things even worse because it's an embarrassing insult to Rand's legacy.

Again, I wish everyone would step back and see there is more wrong with Limbaugh and his Republican colleagues than just their religious beliefs (which some people even go so far as to downplay as much as possible, but that's a shitstorm for another thread.)

*This is hyperbole to make a point.

[themadkat]

I listened to Rush for many years, usually in the car with my dad. I cannot say I have any positive evaluation of him, other than on very rare occasions being entertaining. I'm surprised no one else has called him on being so blatantly anti-intellectual. When he goes on some of his more impressive rants about liberals, especially the "liberal elite", I always took note of what exactly he was criticizing them FOR. And although some of his criticisms were insightful and accurate, sometimes it seemed as though he was attacking them for daring to be EDUCATED, for daring to have a different take on things than "good ol' regular folk with common sense". A lot of it doesn't sound much different from a wink-wink nudge-nudge about who's REALLY smart, the simple common folk, who didn't need to go do all that book-learnin. He found some of the worst ways to be both elitist and populist at the same time.

Look, Rush is very successful at what he does, and that's fine, but to take him as some kind of paragon of virtue somewhat mystifies me. And I definitely never got the impression of him as some kind of great guy. This came out especially with his callers. He never actually permits anyone to make a real argument and if they ever make a good point he'll ignore or fail to respond to it. But he'll "me-too" someone who calls for like 20 minutes. And his faux-politeness always masks a thin veneer of derision, as far as I can tell.

There are lots of smart people with great ideas out there, who find ways to disseminate them. Why cling on to this guy? I think he does way more harm than good.

[K-Mac]

Yeah, and Rush called Obama The Magic Negro too.

(Parody song by "The Rev. Al Sharpton" that Rush played in response to the aforementioned article.)

My point is, it's very difficult to believe anything the media says about Rush Limbaugh. They hate him and it shows. If you listen to his show regularly, then hear what the press says, it's truly astonishing how they distort everything he does or says. I'm not saying he's perfect, but the mainstream media is an awful place to get your info on this guy. (Or anything else for that matter.)

EDIT: Oh, and the LA Times article was written by a black man.

Edited March 21, 2009 by K-Mac