“We have started a new feature at RushLimbaugh.com called ‘Rush in a Hurry,’ and the ‘Rush in a Hurry’ is a little tease, a little tidbit, a little e-mail that you get from us detailing what’s coming up in detail as the website is updated around six p.m. Eastern Time to reflect the contents of the day’s program. What were doing is we are giving away at random eight, 80-gig video iPods engraved with my signature, one a week for eight weeks,” Rush Limbaugh explains.
Limbaugh explains, “Just go to RushLimbaugh.com, and halfway down the page the right side there’s a little red box that says ‘Rush in a Hurry.’ You sign up. It’s free. It’s a little added service to tide you over until the site is updated after the program concludes on a daily basis. So we have away five more signature iPods to go.”
The ‘Rush in a Hurry’ page states, “New from the EIB Network… “Rush in a Hurry” Daily Show Notes… a free email with a quick daily read of highlights from each and every excursion into broadcast excellence… Every Friday, for 8 weeks, we’re giving away a Video iPod with 80 gigabytes of storage. Each of these beauties is customized with a reproduction of Rush’s own signature on the case.”
More info and entry form here.
MacDailyNews Note: According to Answers.com’s Rush Limbaugh bio, “As of 2005, Arbitron ratings indicate the show’s audience to average 13.5 million listeners weekly, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States… Limbaugh was the 1992, 1995, 2000 and 2005 recipient of the Marconi Radio Award for Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year (given by the National Association of Broadcasters)… He was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1993. In 2002, industry’s Talkers magazine ranked him as the greatest radio talk show host of all time. NewsMax.com Magazine’s “Top Talk Radio Host” list selected Limbaugh as the most influential host in the nation.”
Related articles:
Steve Jobs & Rush Limbaugh agree: U.S. public schools are ‘unionized in the worst possible way’ – February 20, 2007
Rush Limbaugh and Apple Computer to intro new podcast service via iTunes – March 08, 2006
Rush Limbaugh announces video podcasts for Apple iPod starting December 12th – November 30, 2005
Rush Limbaugh: ‘I am the hottest thing in podcasting’ – June 09, 2005
Rush Limbaugh and Apple Computer working to bring podcasts of radio show to iTunes Music Store – May 17, 2005
Rush Limbaugh says ‘Mac OS X Tiger Rocks,’ posts link to free Rush advertisement for Mac – April 30, 2005
The Hill: Put Rush Limbaugh on Apple’s board of directors; he could sell tons of Macs – January 26, 2005
Rush Limbaugh calls for Apple iCal to Sidekick solution – November 12, 2004
Rush Limbaugh: Why does Apple put politics first? – June 27, 2003
Rush Limbaugh comments on Gored Apple – March 21, 2003
Here we go….
(sits back, makes popcorn and waits for the fireworks show to begin)
It can hold over 500 hours of attacks on “liberals”!
Go Rush!
Aren’t his fingers too fat to write on an iPod?
this guy will add Oxycontin pills to your Rush iPod for free
http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/2007/04/have_your_rush_.html
wow, the second virus on iPod story in less than a week……
barf.
Just awaiting the inevitable onslaught from the libtards…..
I agree. Go Rush… however I’m referring to the Canadian prog-rock band.
Limbaugh reportedly doesn’t like Steve Jobs — not to mention a certain fella who used to be Vice President and is an Apple board member — but Rush has been a Mac user and enthusiast since Apple’s “beleagered” days, often praising it’s products on air. So, agree with his politics or not, I gotta say, th–, th–, cough, choke, th — anks, gasp, for promoting Apple, Rush. Cough
Is it worth selling my soul for the chance at a free iPod?
boy, slow news day…
is it true he’ll sodomize you with the ipod while you listen to his podcasts of constipated rants?
Al,
How can you let this thing happen! Apple and Rush in the same bed! I thought Apple is only for the Liberals.
WMD
A feces-brown Zune would be more apropos for Limbaugh’s “journalistic integrity.”
Limbaugh is a grotesque and repugnant monument to hubris, arrogance, selective perception and a complete dearth of ethics.
To have him even remotely associated with anything Apple taints the brand.
Heh, I said “taint” in a sentence referring to Rush Limbaugh. Now that’s an artistic metaphor!
Set up an email alias just for this, and if you win the iPod, take it to an engraver who will, for $20-$40, etch the back to replace the signature of the hypocritical, right wing, nut-ball (hmm… rather redundant, but still accurate) with a square pattern. Then disable that email alias, and life is happy.
Seems worthwhile to me.
Howard Stern rules!
I have never heard Rush say that he dislikes Jobs.
What I have heard him say is that Steve Jobs probably gets ill every time Rush promotes Apple products
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
I’d have to get some steel wool and scratch his name off. LOL. Then I’ll reinitialize the hard drive 15 times to make sure none of his dribble is on it.
Very talented radio talk show host, with a huge following, who is not afraid to talk up Apple even tho Apple very clearly slants left and even has Gore on it’s board.
I like the fact that Rush didn’t cheap out and offer to give away smaller iPods but rather the big daddy 80 GB ones.
This is just more good news for Apple as it offers even more free advertising of its products to millions of people.
to whom said: “slow news day today”
indeed it is…zz
“Just awaiting the inevitable onslaught from the libtards…..”
How dare anyone question the wisdom of Rush, right? Left?
You’re a tool.
“A feces-brown Zune would be more apropos for Limbaugh’s “journalistic integrity.”
First of all, put away your thesaurus, and pay attention to the real world. Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist, and does not need to have “journalistic integrity”.
He is a news commentator (like Hannity, Combs, Gallagher, Franken, O’Reilly, etc.). His show is (as he says) entertainment. When someone tunes into Rush, they are not doing so to get unbiased news. It is stated clearly that it is a conservative talk show.
People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?
MW: attack (ironic!)
“A feces-brown Zune would be more apropos for Limbaugh’s ‘journalistic integrity’.”
________________
Uhh, Rush Limbaugh is not and does not claim to be a journalist. He is a commentator. There is a big difference. And I thought liberals were supposedly the ones that had cornered the market on nuance. Go figure!
” … 13.5 million listeners weekly, making it the largest radio talk show audience in the United States”
Arguing against politics is one thing, arguing against numbers is something else.
Rush is good for the Mac and the iPod.
Politics on an internet forum. How…cute.
I think the “Red vs. Blue” guys said all that needs to be said on that topic…
Rush has distain for SJ politics, and a certain Apple board member for sure, but outside of that, admire Rush for this:
He does not let his politics bleed into which technology he feels is best to do the job, and Mac’s and Apple fit the bill – Rush makes no qualms about it.
As for politics, one must begin to wonder where Steve Jobs stands in all of this.
If Steve is a died and true enviro guy, that is hard to believe. Would any enviro person run a gadget growing tech company, increasing product builds in China (zero regulation-land)? Doubtful.
Green Peace slams Apple at every turn no matter what Apple does. Steve can’t like these fakey folks. A true environmentalist would say “stop using all this gadget stuff!!!” but Steve promotes it like crazy, so one must wonder how true he is to the “environment religion.”
Recently Steve lashed out at Public school unions, telling it like it is, even at risk to K-12 Mac sales! This “union’s are killing education” speach is anything but liberal, but very libertarian in fact…
As it is attributed to Churchill (losely phrased) “If you are not liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not conservative when you are older, you have no brain.”
Perhaps Steve sits somewhere on the boarders, with his own political and social ideology, something akin to “If it benifits me, all good.”
FrankenBerry>> Just awaiting the inevitable onslaught from the libtards…..
It isn’t just the liberals who despise Rush’s lack of objectivity. There are some conservatives left who have integrity and the ability to reason; who don’t just sit back and digest the daily GOP talking points; who are appalled at the extreme right-wing hypocrisy and what it is doing to our once proud party.
Liberal Democrat, you are right on!
GAG!
If Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulter follow suit we may have to initiate an iPod burning campaign. What idiots!
How about one with the Axis of Evil – Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld??
Ok seriously, he recently admitted on an NPR interview that he doesn’t care if what he says is true or not, but only says what he does to get hits and viewers/listeners. When John Dvorak claims that same thing, we all talk about how he’s slime, but somehow because Rush represents a political claim, we don’t pounce all over him again?
Hey, I don’t think of myself as a liberal or a conservative, but if I did think of myself as a conservative, this would be the last guy I’d want to align with. He’s the Dvorak of politics and listening to him is as bad as listening to Dvorak. Let’s ignore Limbaugh like we do Dvorak.
No, numbers don’t matter, integrity does. (same goes for apple, I don’t care if their 2.3% world-wide, as long as they make a good product)
here’s what Rush said: I always say my real purpose is to attract the largest audience I can, and hold it for as long as I can, so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates.
you can read more here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7018083
Good God, people.
Like Rush or Hate Rush, I don’t care. He does speak well of his experiences with Mac products.
Just because he is extreme, doesn’t mean you have to be also.
The more he mentions macs on the air, the better. It might just make some people say, hmm, maybe I should atleast look at a mac next time.
Grow up. Hate rush, don’t listen him. Great. I personally don’t think there is a spits difference between republicans and democrats. But I do want more mac marketshare (but no more then 20%)
“I’ll wager 500 quatloos and a case of Oxycontin on the newcomer!!”
MW: “great” as in “Great googly moogly, this topic is gonna cause a partisan pie fight!”
Rush likes Steve. He does not like his politics… outside of education anyway.
They both agree… and are both absolutely correct that teacher’s unions are draining opportunity out of our school system. Teacher’s unions are one of several things that are wrong with our current system, and Rush has been fighting this fight for a very long time!
i sem to recall, back in the days that Rush had a TV show, that he predicted it would become super huge across america. Didn’t turn out that way. The only thing that became super huge was his ass. His ego already was.
The EIB network, what are their other shows?
More like the FIB, Flatulence In Broadcasting.
You guys ought to thank us right wingers. Unlike you libs, we have jobs and can afford to by Apple products…
Oh that’s right! With all the government handouts the libs are proposing, We get to buy you lefty reliefers a Mac too..
Liberal = Public Assistance = Working people buying welfare bums FREE Macs!!!
Gotcha!
Comes pre-loaded with a “Fair and Balanced” playlist…wait, wrong blow-hard, wrong broadcast medium.
Both liberals and conservatives have jobs. Both buy Macs, as proven by the fact that ChrissyOne is most obviously liberal and very pro-Mac, as well as by Rush himself who owns Mac products.
A small aside… you fail to consider the fact that there are people in America who receive governmental assistance because no matter how hard they work, they just don’t make enough to support their families. Many of the families on welfare consist of survivors of domestic violence and single moms. Your failure to appreciate the circumstances of people on welfare suggests you should not comment on the subject.
oh and
conservative = without understanding or sufficient knowledge = war and death
As proven by own very own George W. Bush.
Go, be conservative, and watch another man die for Georgie Porgies oil interests.
*our
According to Noam Chomsky many of the Elite are Liberal, at least on social issues. I’d wager to guess that most American conservatives are working class people. Most big wealth is inherited-mix that with a decent education, guilt and free time; odds are you’ll turn out liberal.
Rush Limbaugh is a low brow, lying, corporate lackey ‘entertainer’.
I doubt half of his ‘ditto-heads’ could afford or even recognize Mac’s superiority.
ChrissyOne:
“How dare anyone question the wisdom of Rush, right? Left?
You’re a tool.”
I encourage everyone to think for themselves whether I agree with them or not. That doesn’t mean people with different viewpoints can’t disagree civilly.
“You guys ought to thank us right wingers. Unlike you libs, we have jobs and can afford to by Apple products…
Oh that’s right! With all the government handouts the libs are proposing, We get to buy you lefty reliefers a Mac too..
Liberal = Public Assistance = Working people buying welfare bums FREE Macs!!!
Gotcha!”
care to compare household income for last year? wanna bet my liberal household makes less than you? i would love to know the truth….
the truth, according to polls, is that while there are a lot of wealthy conservatives, the overwhelming mass of conservative voting people are the ones who barely make enough to survive. see “whats the matter with Kansas” for example.
but like any good conservative, you won’t let fact or reality stan in the way of making a point….
That used to be true, twighlight. The internet has helped remove civility from most any debate.
Thank you for helping to demonstrate my point, shen…
so, what you are saying, is that when someone makes a point with no basis in fact, to challenge it is uncivil?
i think i misunderstood something here.
I’m pretty liberal, so naturally I disagree with almost everything I’ve heard Mr. Limbaugh say. But I do believe very strongly in his constitutional right to express and broadcast his opinions, even when he is in error either in his analysis or with the facts, as is often the case. The fact that he uses Apple products is meaningless to me, other than disproving the myth that only liberals use Macs.
So, for that, thank you, Rush. Now get back to your misinformation agenda.
is this guy really important on global scheme? if not, who cares?
“care to compare household income for last year? wanna bet my liberal household makes less than you? i would love to know the truth….”
Kids…
I’m sure when you grow up, you’ve vote democrat.
And maybe you will make more than me then because Hillary is going to be President and I get to pay for your Health Care, Your Housing, Your, Your Food Stamps, You Mac…
Libs are funny! I worked for everything I have…. You want me to hand it to you!
Have a nice life in theh projects..
All you have to do is say one of the following 4 names in a news story here and the libturds will come running like little lemmings every single time….
George Bush
Bill O’Reilly
Rush Limbaugh
Dick Cheney
If anything, you dipshits are certainly predictable….
And next offer is a 16mm movie camera autographed by Adolf Hitler complete with footage of the Nuremberg rallies and a free copy of Mein Kampf.
Can I get them three for a dollar at the Barnicle Brothers 60 second sale?
Shouldn’t all of you be working, doing homework, or outside playing?
Actually, speaking of work…off I go. You all cease to entertain me.
All The liberals and democrats are afraid of Rush!!!!! Oh, I’m Sorry…. What i meant is all the communists and socialists are afraid of rush… because liberals and democrats are the communists and the socialists.
“HA HA”
GO RUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A little Viagra to go with the Oxycontin
From the smoking Gun
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706062rush1.html
Come out, come out, wherever you are…
Rush is in showbiz, not politics, and I suspect he could do a lefty show if that’s where the ratings were. We don’t know what he thinks – we know what he says.
As for the politics, anyone who thinks the problems of the nation and the positions of the parties are simplistic enough to summarize in a couple of sentences is simple-minded enough to believe anyone who agrees with him.
^ Double Engraving — Who the hell gives a sh-t what he uses? Let’s look into your private documents, eh?
F-cktard.
Typical Lib.
I like Rush, but Bill O’Riley is better, more open minded and calls it like it really is more than Rush or Hannity.
I listened to Rush praise the Mac in many ways, many times in the 1980’s he’s helped us a lot.
Back in the seventies I listened to Rush on FM.
Thirty years later I listen to Rush on AM.
Weird.
I also heard a song off “Grace Under Pressure” today on Sirius, after I had just switched from AM.
Weird.
Good post, TwilightMoon.
And for the rest, yes, Rush Limbaugh is a big deal to the conservative movement. You can think of him as a cheeleader.
He is also a forum for like minded people, just as this forum is for Mac Heads.
So when you say that people who listen to Rush L. can’t think for themselves, keep in mind they don’t all agree with each other on everything, and that Rush has some MAJOR disagreements with the Bush Administration, and doesn’t really consider him to be that conservative.
So believe it or not, you on the left actually have something in common with him after all (besides being Apple lovers)…
I don’t know how to break it to you lefties, but, uh, George Bush is not, and never has been a conservative, nor has he ever been considered one by conservatives. You’re confusing “Republican” with “Conservative”. Big mistake!
Again, I see lefties holding themselves up as people of understanding, and yet again, I seem them not being able to grasp even the *simplest* things.
So, just to recap, Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist, he is a commentator. And George Bush is not a conservative, he is a Republican.
Got it? Good!
In our next class I’ll explain to you why lazy, shiftless, shitheads are not entitled to the earnings of others – even if those lazy, shiftless, shitheads are members of a certain race.
Liberals are quick to point out that Rush Limbaugh is a pompous and irritating buffoon. OK, I agree. So, if Rush is such an obviously pretentious and obnoxious idiot, why do you liberals fear him so much? I think that it is because even an bellowing blowhard like Rush is more cogent and intelligent than a liberal twit.
Why is it that when Rush’s name is mentioned on MDN that the only thing liberals have to say is that he is a hater, lier, and purveyor of misinformation (or worse)?
If that is so obviously the case then maybe a couple of examples to prove your case?
Otherwise, what you people are saying about Rush is, at best, slander so you might think about just shutting up until you can show you actually know what you are talking about.
Commentators like Rush deal with two parallels tracks of information; the first being the facts of the case, and the second being his opinion about those facts. If this causes some form of cognitive dissonance for the several undereducated liberals reading this thread, I apologize in advance.
By way of example, the FACT is that there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Rush then takes that FACT and comments on why he thinks that people like Apple board member, Al Gore (a primo example of a glittering jewell of hypocrisy) can daily produce a gigantic carbon footprint while lecturing the rest of us about our behavior. You may disagree with Rush’s take on Gore’s hypocrisy but this does not make Rush’s commentary “misinformation”.
Meanwhile, the liberal god, Al Gore, wants us to give up oil! Where does he think an iPod comes from, tree bark?
MDN MW: “Radio”
Conservative, stop cutting and pasting from the RNC’s slander list.
Every Apple user I know (most dating back to the 512K and Plus) are centrist Democrats.
Only 30% of the population agree with the Dictator in Chief. More people than that are legally insane, so you get all the droolers and bedwetters. We get teh scientists and educators.
Good one “liberal democrat”. 3 talking points and not a single one of them have any bearing on reality.
a. which RNC talking points?
b. anecdotal observations from people who live in their parent’s basement don’t really constitute evidence. Keep trying though.
c. 30% of the population is insane? Hmmm. Nice statistic you pulled out of your nether regions.
d. The founding fathers were all pretty well educated and most of them were more conservative than Limbaugh. As for scientists, all the fathers of modern science were creationists and thus more conservative than Rush as well.
Next?
I would love a free iPod, but I rather get one that is not scratched in the back.
bah, Limbaugh should have given a way a Zune.
linking his name to the iPod is like covering it with shit. (the brown zune is for him)
You really need to get out more. I been a gun-toting, meat-eating, flag-waving, truck-driving, conservative, former member of the armed forces, and heterosexual Mac user for over 20 years; and there are more of us than you could ever imagine.
I have always wondered, how could a liberal ever favor a Mac? I mean, PCs with Windows are certainly the choice of the proletariat, given their ubiquity. It almost scary knowing that some liberals might even be smart enough to choose to own the preferred computer of their right wing overlords.
According to the results of the last 2 presidential elections, 1/3 of American vote liberal, 1/3 of Americans vote conservative and 1/3 of Americans don’t even care enough to bother to get out and vote.
No majority there. All election results are bogus. You deserve what you get.
@ TT
There is one Rush we can agree on. I had to bust out Distant Early Warning when I read your post. =)
Oh, and BTW, from 91-94 I was a confirmed Dittohead. Watched the TV show, read the books, everything. So I know a thing or two about Rush.
My god, was I ever a wanker. >.<
MDN, don’t forget that he got nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
C1-
Hah! So now you are wankerless? (sorry, I had to ask…)
‘Distant Early Warning’ was the song.
I still have that vinyl around here somewhere….
;P Not quite yet, I’m a work-in-progress.
-c
MW: ‘forward’
lol, yeah he was nominated for a peace prize!
….by a group not eligible to nominate people.
….. for which he is on the board of directors.
rotflmao.
magic word “terms”
as in Rush forgot to read the terms of nomination eligibility.
… and Rush agitates you so terribly that you pee your pants and crap yer britches? Gawd, you’re even more pathetic than Rush.
A work in progress? No, a freak in transition, instead.
What a sad, lonely, anonymous life you have.
@shen,
I don’t think you know whether or not Landmark Legal Foundation is in category three of the nobel nominating prereqs. And whether Limbaugh is on the board of the foundation or not is immaterial and if you knew anything about the process you would know this.
Thirdly, Rush has no hope of ever winning the Nobel Prize regardless of the process which nominated him. Because Limbaugh has been one of the leading voices for freedom and democracy in the world and because he is a.) not a terrorist leader, b.) not a major league anti-semite, c.) not a dictator, and d.) not a liberal, he has no hope of winning. Based on what we know, to win, you must be one of those 4 categories.
If the person who ended the 3rd world war and saved 200 million lives from certain nuclear holocaust without firing a single shot cannot win a peace prize, then no conservative ever will.
Oh, and by the way, one has to wonder what pushing the AGW hoax has to do with “peace”? Gore deserves the prize about as much as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ‘Course, knowing the Nobel organization’s history, Ahmadinejad is probably the leading candidate so maybe Gore has a shot after all.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“If the person who ended the 3rd world war and saved 200 million lives from certain nuclear holocaust… “
To whom are you referring?
Seriously
“but somehow because Rush represents a political claim, we don’t pounce all over him again? “
Are you kidding? People revile Rush Limbaugh every single day.
He’s a shock-jock. His fans love him, his detractors hate him. That’s his job.
-jcr
“but somehow because Rush represents a political claim, we don’t pounce all over him again? “
Are you kidding? People revile Rush Limbaugh every single day.
He’s a shock-jock. His fans love him, his detractors hate him. That’s his job.
-jcr
“but somehow because Rush represents a political claim, we don’t pounce all over him again? “
Are you kidding? People revile Rush Limbaugh every single day.
He’s a shock-jock. His fans love him, his detractors hate him. That’s his job.
-jcr
“but somehow because Rush represents a political claim, we don’t pounce all over him again? “
Are you kidding? People revile Rush Limbaugh every single day.
He’s a shock-jock. His fans love him, his detractors hate him. That’s his job.
-jcr
@relax,
Not to be insulting but were you not paying attention when the US won the Cold War?
This famous speech may provide a clue:
“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
For the entire text of the most pivotal peace speech of the latter 20th century , visit here.
So intersesting for people outside of the USA. NOT! At first glance I thought it was something to eat. I stand corrected. Next?
@Beeblebrox –
I am not insulted as I assume you will not be when I respectfully disagree. As you said, the *US* won the cold war. Mr Reagan was at the helm at the time but I don’t think the outcome would have been different had he not been. The timing perhaps but not the outcome. If Jimmy Carter or John Anderson had won in ’80 or had the ’81(?) assassination attempt been successful elevating Bush (41) the USSR would still have lost It was a defeat 40+ years in the making.
“Of course that’s just my opinion. I may be wrong.”
HAH – I NEVER pay attention to the MW but this is too good: “peace”
What little you know, freak.
oops – put a . after lost in the next to last line
The south will rise again!
with the Mac.
relax-
Jimmy Carter would have never had the succes against the Soviets that Reagan had. Not a chance in Hell. Ever. Period.
Carter was their dream. A weak leader who believed everyone was as decent as he (used to be). That shit don’t cut it in the real world-unless you’re the Pope.
Anderson wouldn’t have had the clout to rebuild the military, and George Sr., bless his moderate decency, would not have caused the Reds to stop and worry about a united US.
Reagan did all that, at a time that the Russians could ill afford another arms build up.
You see, they thought they had already beaten us, because like many others, they believed what they read in the NY Times.
**************************************
NOW, to the @@@@@person
For what ever reason someone sees fit to dog a person that is different here philosophically is OK, and the American way. But whoever it is that can’t handle some people here who are different physically, religiously, or sexually, isn’t a good enough person to be a conservative OR a liberal. So fuck off.
MW:indeed
I’m feeling a rush right now…
ooohhh, aahhhhh, yessssss
What did Steve Jobs say about acid anyway?
Oh yea
“I wish him [Bill Gates] the best, I really do. I just think he and Microsoft are a bit narrow. He’d be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once or gone off to an ashram when he was younger.”
Spoken from experience obviously.
Anyone got some tofu to eat and dirty mattress I can crash on?
TT is right.
I don’t agree with BustingTheSkulls OfIdiots.
But I am certainly NOT going to poke fun at him for being a Morman hermaphrodititic dwarf.
@TowerTone
As for the politics you may be right. I’ll never know. But I still think the USSR lost it as much as we won it and the outcome was inevitable.
As for your rant on the “@@@@person” I raise my glass and second your motion.
BTW – This is NOT an accusation against you but in my experience, a great many people who criticize the NYTimes have NEVER read it. I read it in that era and never thought we lost anything. (In a similar vein, the next time someone criticizes Istar, ask them if they’ve seen it. If you haven’t seen it…it sucks.)
Wiseguy,
Tofu is good. It retains several properties of veal (good host for sauces, etc.).
without the fat, etc.
More importantly,
http://www.britishmeat.com/veal.html.
Now, what does a tofu, an Asian staple, btw, have to do with “dirty-mattresses”?
You know that G.W was a cokehead, don’t you?
Draft-dodging chicken-shit, too. (Like Cheney. The actual president. George is too stupid).
Or isn’t that evident to you, dittohead (doesn’t that term embarrass you) when you hear him speak?
Here we come, here we come!!!!
First it was the senate, then the house, and now for the final nail in the NeoConAgenda, the white house.
And I’ll be listening it on my iPod designed by a bunch of hippie liberals in CA.
Republican trash + Oxycotton + Viagra = Rush.
Read it an weep. Read it and weep.
Nothing your precious Rush, Orielly, the vitamin seller himself Mr. Savage, or the See You Next Tuesday closet lezbo ann coulter, can ever do about it.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
BTW, Household income over 140 K, and harcore Liberal. If you couldn’t tell. And a house full of Apples, too.
relax
I was a reader of the Times and Washington Post when I lived in the DC area late 80’s. Not so much now-save for online articles (along with the LA Times)
And you are right, the outcome was inevitable, just as the one we are now facing. The queation is ‘when’, and I believe Reagan accelerated it by at least a decade, and I believe the left is postponing the one now. But it will happen. Inevitably.
@Libturd – If Annie C was a lezbo there’d be a reason to watch her.
and an attic full of nuts, Libtard?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
Always, that would give him three legs, three wives, and four pu$$ie$…..
@TowerTone – I suspect you’re correct in saying RR accelerated the outcome. A cost/benefit analysis of this acceleration would require smarter people or more wine.
I’m not too confident of my (or anyone’s) ability to see the outcome of today’s crises. My foresight isn’t as acute as my hindsight. I’ll have to get a new ophthalmologist.
relax-
maybe if more people paid to have their vision maintained and enjoyed a little wine, such as you, the world would not be in this situation.
As it is, I don’t like what I see, and can’t afford enough wine…..
I hate liberals! You all ride in like fairies on your pink fluffy clouds going “oohhhh…. I LOVE the terrorists! Oooohhhh!” This is WAR, and none of you have the stomach for it. You should thank your lucky stars we have someone like Bush keeping your sorry posteriors from getting blown to kingdom come. You’re all so worried about global warming that NUCLEAR warming doesn’t cross your sorry brains! Rush sees it. Bush sees it. But you liberal pansies are too into your koombaya to not even notice the muslim terrorist ready to nuke your peace beads. If you ain’t American, you need to get your buttholes bombed. And that’s the way it should be.
To TowerTone,
From someone here who is different physically, spiritually, and spiritually, thank you for defending ChrissyOne. It demonstrates that all conservatives don’t fit the stereotype of the closed-minded social neocons who give right-wingers a bad name. Yes, I’m a lib, but I thank you for being a class act.
@Rush to the Max – That’s right baby, talk dirty to me. Tell me again about the warming….
Sorry…. I meant to say “sexually”, instead of spiritually twice. Must be sleepy….
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Posts like Rush to the Max’s-
priceless!
Keep up the good work!
You need more Oxycontin.
To ChrissyOne—
Ignore the bigoted jerks out there. I’m amazed they have the brainpower to turn on a Mac, let alone own one.
FIRST POST!!!!!!!!
P.S. Rush to the Max is cool. Nuke everybody, except my grandma. She is very nice and makes me cookies.
Ugh. As much as I love iPods and Apple, I wouldn’t touch these things. And what’s with the praise of Limbaugh in MDN’s note? Sheesh, I don’t want to see such slanted drivel on MDN, whether it’s about Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore or any other political figure. If you want to tell us that Rush is giving away iPods, or Gore the Apple board member won an Oscar, just tell us about it without partisan takes.
Oh, and Rush to the Max’s was just great. And TowerTone is my favorite conservative here, too. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but he shows class which is rare.
+++
++++
Both parties have their extremist. I read both here. Both act child-like with name calling. both think they are right. Rush is right and paul wellstone where right 1/2 of the time. When I hear someone say they don’t agree with limbaugh at all, I say you are intellectually dishonest to yourself. No one can be 90% wrong 100% of the time. Nor was wellstone wrong all the time.
+++++
“A man who is not a liberal when he’s 20 has no heart. And a man who is not a conservative when he’s 40 has no brain.”
– Winston Churchill (when asked why he “switched”)
As if your opinion makes a difference. Why should I lower my standards to pander to your liberal inclinations? That would be dishonest and duplicitous. In fact, pissing you off is my intention and as long as I’m aggravating you I believe that I am successful. Think about it, twit, would you change what you thread to make me or any other right winger happy?
“A man who is not a liberal when he’s 20 has no heart. And a man who is not a conservative when he’s 40 has no brain.”
– Winston Churchill (when asked why he “switched”)
I think it was William F. Buckley.
No, I believe it was Churchill.
I don’t think Bill Buckley, the Father of Modern Conservatism, was ever a liberal-unless maybe he smoked a menthol cigarette rather than a standard….
@Beeblebrox
What ever gave you the idea that the Founding Fathers were Conservative?
A very large number of them were actually practicing Deists. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, et. al., wrote extensively about their disdain for organized religions and fundamentalist proclivities for political mayhem, and specifically designed our political system to exclude religions for that reason!
Read the Constitution some time, you will not see the word God in it anywhere. Thomas Jefferson, in his Presidency, used the words “wall between church and state” for the first time.
The treaty of Tripoli specifically stated in it (section 11, I think) that the United States was not founded upon Christianity. It was signed, ratified by the Senate, approved by the President (Hamilton at the time), and published in the (I think) Philadelphia paper shortly thereafter with absolutely no public notice or outcry at all.
Sorry, but the Founding Fathers were decidedly NOT Conservative, as we see that today.
@relax,
What you are saying about Reagan is what is known technically as “sour grapes”.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
To say that something was “inevitable” when NO ONE on your side of the aisle believed that at the time is revisionist at best. In the 70s, the Soviets were on the ASCENDANCY. Carter was weak and incompetent. He had neutered the military, the Soviets had accelerated their nuke program, built their own missile defense system, and had moved way ahead of us in the space race. They had also constructed massive underground defense structures that would make Cheyenne Mt. look like a rabbit hole. They were clearly preparing for war and all Carter could do was purse a feckless “Détente” foreign policy that was emboldening the Russians ever more. Everyone but a few thought we would be, AT BEST, in a stale-mate with the USSR for the foreseeable future and toast if we stood up to them.
Just look at the NYT or any other liberal media outlet’s coverage of Reagan in the early years (or even during his campaign against Carter). He was a “cowboy” who would bring about Armageddon if he were elected. The Soviets were too powerful to stand up against (which is why we did nothing to stop them from the day WWII ended). When he was elected he was a “loose cannon” who would aggravate the more powerful Soviets and probably start WWIII.
In fact, Reagan was smarter than all of them. He knew we had superior will and expertise even though we had a smaller military and he also knew we were already in a world war, just one that was being fought stealthily, diplomatically, and politically. It was a war of wits and he saw that Carter had no wits about him and so did the American people. They saw that Reagan had gravitas and it was this that was needed against the Soviets.
We don’t realize just how weak our military was when Reagan took the White House. But Reagan believed the US was the world’s last best hope, the “shining city on the hill” as he put it. He believed, and objective historians (as opposed to those in the halls of Berkeley and UC, Santa Cruz) recognize that the Soviets were ready to make their move had Carter won.
You see Relax, what you think was “inevitable” (the retreat of the USSR) is actually 180 degrees off. What was “inevitable” is that the Soviets were running out of cash and they needed to EXPAND their control into Europe. Only the US stood in their way. The missile shield Reagan was intent on building was designed to first defend Europe and then later us. Given their history of belligerent militarism, the Soviets were much more likely to continue marching into nearby countries than they were to surrender, but Reagan knew that if he exhibited a tough-minded foreign policy backed up with resolve to use force, that Gorby would back down. Reagan didn’t give an inch in the famous 1986 summit in Reykjavik, he started building the strategic defense initiative, he built back up the military to pre-Carter strength, he was unabashedly pro-democracy in his speeches (such as the one mentioned above in Berliln), and he did everything exactly the OPPOSITE of what Carter was doing and would have continued to do had he been reelected.
No, what was inevitable is that we would all either be dead or speaking Russian (metaphorically) right now had Carter won or had Reagan continued Carter’s foreign policy.
I will say however, that Reagan’s one foreign-policy blunder was not fixing the other major foreign policy mess Carter got us into, that being the Iran debacle. Today Iran is the focal point of the global jihad and Bush is (somewhat impotently) trying to deal with that mess today. Of course, he is nibbling around the edges but that is because he is a moderate (not a “neocon” and certainly not a conservative). Moderates of good-will like Bush can be dangerous because they want to do the right thing but they also want to be liked by their enemies. As a result, Bush is half-heartedly going about doing the right thing and getting beat up by his enemies for doing too much and by his friends for not doing enough.
Reagan never cared about being liked by the Left, he was more concerned with the country he was sworn to protect. As a result, he won the Cold War and ended up with a legacy as one of the greatest American presidents ever. That’s what happens when you do the right thing the right way.
rahrens
There are different types of conservtives. It is not all about religeon. There a fiscal and Constitutional conservatives. In the matter of family values, religeon is not the only factor, and even that has varying degrees.
Out of all of my conservative friends, only a few are regular church goers (I’m not one of them), and two of them are Democrats (old style).
And once again, Jeferson’s “wall of seperation” quote is being used out of context. When he stated that, he was addressing a religeous group, and he was telling them that the Federal government was seperate from the State government AND religeon, meaning that STATES had the ability to deal in religeon, but NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This quote has been so abused over the years that most don’t really care what his intent was, just how they can use it to their advantage. Do a little more research, and you will find the complete transcript of his speech and its meaning.
MW:college
@Beebblebrox
…talking about nether regions, where did you get your information about the “fathers of modern science” being creationists?
There were a lot of men who fit that description, and I am sure that they all are not members of American denominations that describe themselves as such.
Our debate today is quite different from what you may have seen two hundred or three hundred years ago. Most people bought into what the churches taught, and before those men of science you speak of began changing how we saw the universe, there was no reason for people to question those teachings.
So while one could argue that they were taught the creationist story in the Bible by the church, one cannot use the term creationist in today’s sense of that meaning. Many of those men discovered basic scientific principles that we revere them for today, principles that have undermined the creationist’s beliefs since, but the times, they were different.
You cannot claim them to be ‘creationist” in the sense you want to use. Your statement gives the impression that they were creationist in spite of what they did scientifically. But without the basis of modern scientific knowledge (which they did not have), the Bible’s creationist story could not be successfully challenged at the time.
In addition, as I mentioned above, you cannot make a blanket statement like that without naming names and citing references. There are just too many people that fit that description from too many places and times.
Good post, Beeblebrox.
MW:post
rahrens
I think you are confusing conservatives in politics with conservatives in religeon. They are two different groups, although some belong to both, and the political group subscribes to the morality of the Judeo/Christian values, but not neccesarily to the fundamental teachings.
I hope that helps.
it’s funny, obama, that your name shows you follow that same predictability that you speak of? Are you suggesting that you are, like the “libturds” you speak of, a lemming who can’t take some competition from the other side and only like to strike out against liberals? Is your statement one of fraternity, or a really contradictory attempt to distance yourself by proving your predictability?
trust me, your comments clearly enlighten us that you are not a predictable lemming dipshit who has been duped into thinking that your interests are being served in this two party system.
Guess what…Two parties, one paycheck.
It’s time for America to wake up. Mussolini called his party “corpratism” not fascism because it was more descriptive of what fascism really is. Who do you think buys elections in the states? your vote? Do you think that Republicans are conservative and democrats are liberal?
Maybe Colbert will give away 16 iPods with his name on it, as a one up thing, we should tell him.
@Beeblebrox – How do you know what side of the aisle I’m on? (or was at 20?) Because we disagree?
I’m off to have a glass of sour grape juice in memory of Kissenger’s Nobel.
Oh yeah…before everybody bashes Rush………
He spent many years bashing PC’s and saying how great Mac’s are, on the air.
Saying many MDN-like things…such as…not understanding why ppl subject themselves to torture of using PC’s.
He has been doing this way before trendy iPods and OS X was were around.
He has been using Mac’s so long he can call many of you..newbies!
Just my $0.02
@TowerTone
Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislative should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
Yes, one can argue that he was limiting his “wall” to the Federal Government, but if one reads other writings of his regarding his deep distrust of religious organizations and their political motives, I think it is clear that he really wanted that wall to be universal. He knew, however, that the Federal system they had built could not dictate to the States. That is why he was very proud to have been the principal author of Virginia’s Bill of Religious Freedom!
Clearly, he meant that wall to include the States as well!
BTW – Just as I stated that many who bash the NYTimes don’t read it, many who bash Rush don’t listen to him. (as many who bash an Inconvenient Truth haven’t seen it, many who bash Brownie don’t know his history, many who bash Hitler don’t….never mind)
I would also argue that to exclude the Religious Right from the moniker “Conservative” is to miss the point. Clearly, when one reads about the conservative Republicans the Repub. nominee must please in order to win the nomination, it is obvious to everybody that the religious right is who they mean! So in this context, to argue that the Founders were Conservative in spite of their religious beliefs, is wrong.
Obviously, the political scene then was very different than today, and today’s labels of Liberal and Conservative would have made no sense to Jefferson at the time. But in today’s sense of the word, religious values are entwined with that label.
If you think otherwise, please differentiate between the right wing religious values most people think of in that respect and the Conservative values you feel they held otherwise.
rahrens
I don’t see that intent. Here is some information for you, along with supporting references.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/fp6.cfm
I do believe he had a distrust for ANY organization as it may portend to national policy. This can be applied to business, military, environmentalist, AND religeon, as well as others.
That does NOT mean they are to be left out of the process.
rahrens
Just as Hillary can’t please every extreme left group that pops up to save whatever, her appeal is her intention to help them with a voice.
The right is no different with religeon. They represent them, but that doesn’t mean we will have snake handling in the Congress, or revert to horse and buggy. They will help groups to help others, have a voice, and move their agenda that is acceptable to most along. Teaching creation in schools? Not likely. A moment for prayer? Allowable. The area in between has to be worked out.
@ rahrens
You make the fundamental blunder of assuming that conservatives are theocrats. Quite the opposite. We are against state sponsored religion OF ANY KIND (this especially applies to the religion of secular humanism – the one religion liberals love to promote).
I say that the founding fathers were more conservative than even Rush for the following reasons:
They were pro-life, pro family, pro-gun, pro-border control, anti-tax (the Boston “tea party” was over a paltry stamp tax), pro-God (read the Declaration of Independence for confirmation of this), anti-entanglment between state and religion (they were just as fearful of the state controlling religion as they were the other way around). They believed in military might, they believed in rights of the individual, and in fact, what they believed they wrote down in the D of I and the Constitution.
“Conservative” is today, another word for “constitutionalist”. But liberals don’t like the way the constitution reads so that is why it must be considered a “living document”. This is why strict constitutional constructionist judges are anathema to liberals.
Parting word, not only would I argue that guys like Adams and Washington are WAAAY more conservative than Rush but Hubert Humphrey and JFK get pretty close as well. Bush is certainly more liberal than either one of those guys and we know what liberals think of Bush. In short, none of the founding fathers could be elected today because they would be considered radical right-wing extremists. Heck, Michael Savage would have a better shot at the presidency than that Bible-totin’ John Adams, were he alive today.
@ rahrens said: “… Many of those men discovered basic scientific principles that we revere them for today, principles that have undermined the creationist’s beliefs since, but the times, they were different.”
Name one such “principle”. I guarantee you there is no such evidence to support this outrageous assertion.
As for your notion that the fathers of modern science were not Christians/Creationsists
Here are just a few of those who believed that nature was knowable through understanding the Bible and the Creator and built groundbreaking scientific work on that belief:
Robert Grosseteste
Roger Bacon
Leonardo da Vinci
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
William Harvey
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Sir Isaac Newton
Antony van Leeuwenhoek
Carolus Linnaeus
William Herschel
John Herschel
Samuel F. B. Morse
Michael Faraday
Charles Babbage
James Prescott Joule
Lord Kelvin
James Clerk Maxwell
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
Joseph Lister
Henrietta Swan Leavitt
George Washington Carver
Wernher von Braun
James Irwin
and many others.
To see the complete compendium visit David F. Coppedge’s excellent page “THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS”
You can make revisionist claims about how these people were products of their traditions or other such nonsense but the fact remains, they believed God was the Creator, was knowable (or at least his mechanisms were knowable) and orderly and could be fathomed through the scientific method and reading the Bible. To ignore this fact is to be willfully ignorant of history.
My point is that Christianity gave us modern science. There is no way around this reality. Look at the places where Christianity was not able to make inroads (the ME for instance) to see what happens absent Christianity.
@TowerTone
Nice that you use a conservative organization to support your story.
A lot of what they write about Jefferson is wrong. He DID have a strong distrust of organized religion, and wrote about it extensively. He was the principal author of the Virginia State Bill of Religious Freedom, which cemented his intent to separate government from religion into law. He was instrumental in blocking the use of public funds or setting aside Federal land for building churches. All of that is a matter of public record.
I didn’t say he distrusted anybody else. And he didn’t intend for them to be left out of the process. He was a firm believer in a strong tolerance of all belief. Just because he distrusted religious organizations’ motives politically, doesn’t mean that he wanted to exclude religious _individuals_ from that process. He wanted ALL Americans to be included, even slaves. (His motives there are certainly suspect, since he didn’t free his till he died, but I digress.)
Re: the “conservatism” of the Founders.
How anyone could call Jefferson a conservative is quite beyond me. He was an anti-Monarchist and pro-democrat leader whose influence spread far beyond our shores. His ideas were quite liberal for his time, although some of them would feel right at home to today’s libertarian conservatives.
As for that Bible-toting John Adams, he stated in a letter to Jefferson that organized religion was a dreadful curse to mankind and that we would be better off without it. Neither he nor Jefferson believed in the Trinity, in the divinity of Christ, or the resurrection but regarded Jesus as a moral philosopher to be respected, but not worshipped.
I am in the process of reading the writings of Jefferson, Madision, and other Founders about the issue of freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. So far, I am convinced that they wished government to be completely neutral toward religion and for the separation to be absolute.
The treaty containing Article 11 was ratified while John Adams was president. Alexander Hamilton never attained the presidency.
Other than the 5 Repugnican appointed Supremes that selected the loser and violated the Constitution in the process?
“I don’t know how to break it to you lefties, but, uh, George Bush is not, and never has been a conservative, nor has he ever been considered one by conservatives. You’re confusing “Republican” with “Conservative””
It sure wasn’t liberals or progressives that elected the Village idiot of Crawford, Tx.
BTW- Rush used to claim more than 20 million a week- his audience is in decline and judging by his Viagra habit- that’s not all that’s in decline.
I always find it amusing when modern liberals try to use Jefferson as an example of their thinking. This is spurious and a complete rewriting of the man and of history. Jefferson was the CLASSIC liberal (the polar opposite of the modern liberal/socialist/progressive). True, we was more secularist than his peers for sure but he had no problem with Christianity as long as it did not interfere in the affairs of state. If he were alive today his politics would still be right of Bush given his anti-federalist bent. He was a states rights promoter and rival of Washington and Adams (in the same way that Rush is a rival of say, Romney).
I would probably put Jefferson, were he alive today, in the Libertarian camp based on his famous statement: “The government which governs least, governs best.”
Not even George Bush believes such right-wing nonsense as that!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
rahrens
If they were liberal, do you think they would be promoting that idea? And were all of the sources for that interpretation from a ‘conservative’ source?
I don’t guess I understand your point.
Mine is this; the Constitution wanted to keep government out of religeon, but did NOT state that religeon was to be kept out of government.
This does not imply theocracy, but the allowance of morals to be applied to laws, which they are.
Bush is not from Crawford. You must be speaking of someone else….
I understand ranting off-topic after the kids have gone to bed but don’t any of you guys have jobs/classes/lives?
@Beeblebrox
I almost don’t know where to begin.
Yes, they were pro life, but again, times were different, and there wasn’t the argument about that like we have today. they were deists, meaning that, like deists today, they would have supported abortion for medical reasons. Yes, they were pro family (That is such a loaded term, including so many different values, I won’t argue it, I’ll give it to you). Yes, of course, they were pro gun!
Pro border control – that was an issue that related to national control and the US’ rights as a sovereign nation. It’s relation to today’s argument is spurious and meaningless.
The mention of God in the Declaration of Independence is not a reference to a Christian God, it a reference to a supreme being, which most Founding Fathers believed in, being Deists. They also wrote the Constitution, in which they never mentioned God at all.
That is why they could not be elected to office today – not because they would be too Conservative, but because they rejected the Christian views of God and took a naturalists views of religion.
There may be some Conservatives that reject religious control of government, but there are plenty that do! As a matter of fact, Pat Robertson has said just that. I’d say that puts him WAAYY to the right of the Founding Fathers!
When Jefferson wrote about his fears of that nature, he didn’t limit himself to just Christians, he included ALL fundamentalists.
As to your assertions about science, read again what I said about the times being different. You may be outraged about my statement regarding scientific principles, but many scientists believe just that as well. Here is a quote from Einstein:
“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that , compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
These feelings were very harmonious with what the Founding Fathers felt about religion, too. They felt that to look at the order of nature was to reject what they felt was the man-made nature of God espoused in the Bible.
Thomas Paine:
“The Persian shows the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the lawgiver of Persia, and calls it the divine law; the Bramin shows the Shaster, revealed, he says, by God to Brama, and given to him out of a cloud; the Jew shows what he calls the law of Moses, given, he says, by God, on the Mount Sinai; the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament; and the Mahometan shows the Koran, given, he says, by God to Mahomet: each of these calls itself revealed religion, and the only true Word of God, and this the followers of each profess to believe from the habit of education, and each believes the others are imposed upon.
But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.”
The Founding Fathers are Naturists, and Deists, and their religious feelings were decidedly NOT Christian!
In summary, to use the modern term Conservative is to generalize too much in an attempt to coerce and co-opt the Founding Fathers for the side of the Religious Conservatives today. The term would have meant nothing, politically, to them then, and their belief system doesn’t coincide directly with the Conservative movement today, although, as you mention, there are some elements of coincidence.
The Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the attempts of the Religious Right to force their value system into the American political system today, and fought to keep that from happening then. Indeed, their organization of the Constitution was intended to stop just that.
@TowerTone
“Mine is this; the Constitution wanted to keep government out of religeon, but did NOT state that religeon was to be kept out of government.”
Boy, you need to re-read some history!
I don’t know where you get the idea that one can do one but not the other.
The very reason the original settlers from the Mayflower moved out of England was because the Church of England was an OFFICIAL religion and was therefore persecuting them as heretics.
How can you stop any religion that is PART of government from using that governmental power to limit their rival religions? Or promoting and favoring their own?
I repeat, Jefferson repeatedly, vociferously, and constantly wrote about his intentions to keep both government out of religion and religion out of government.
You can’t have one without the other!
Beryllium said: “[Jefferson’s] ideas were quite liberal for his time”
C’mon Beryllium, show some nuance here. The issue is not whether his ideas were liberal “for his time” but whether his or other founding father’s ideas are more in line with modern conservatism or libertarianism than liberalism (my posit). There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that ANY of the founding fathers believed in open borders, gay marriage, abortion, public funded art or education, income taxes or anything else lauded by the Left today.
These people were, for the most part, the quintessential militaristic, patriarchal Christians and Diests that modern liberals LOATHE. A few of them were even “fundamentalists”, others were creationists, some were unitarians (and thus marginal Biblical believers), some were secularists but believed in the importance of the Christian religion as a guiding philosophy. I am not one of those who is working hard to prove that the founders were all evangelicals but on the other hand, the Left is working VERY hard these days to try to prove that the founders were actually agnostics and atheists who despised Christianity. Of the two extremes, the reality is much closer to that of them being evangelicals rather than non-Christian atheists. The reality is that they hated organized religion because of what it had wrought in their home country of England. I too despise organized religion but more because it is a man-made construct that gets in the way of faith more often than not.
As for Jefferson, he may have been more liberal than some of his colleagues but also less so than others (i.e. Franklin and Paine). But look at their political stands relative to modern political ideologies and you will see that Jefferson has a lot more in common with Rush than Hillary.
As for your comments about Adams, I said he was “Bible ‘totin”, not that he was a fundamentalist Christian. He was a voracious reader of the Bible and delved often into textual criticism in his writings because he believed that the King James version was a corrupt version of the original (which it is in some ways I suppose). Adams was a Congregationalist and thus a very devout religious “Christian” although one that most evangelicals today would consider not to be a “believer” in the New Testament sense.
A few of his quotes:
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
In 1796, on Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason, Adams wrote:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.”
In another letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813, he wrote:
I have examined all [religions]…and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.
It should be noted that his son, John Quincy, was a Bible believing Christian who once said:
“A man to be a Christian must believe in God, in the Bible, in the Divinity of the Savior’s mission, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.”
rahrens
Your argument gets a little old. By that interpretation, no person who goes to church would be able to hold office.
No lawmaker would be able to associate his beliefs in right and wrong with any law.
Your disdain for religeon is obvious, and I am not that big of a supporter of their extremes, either, but to claim religeon is not allowed in government is ridiculous.
People take their values to whatever role in life they choose. That doesn’t mean they can force them on YOU, but it also doesn’t give you the right to tell people what they can believe in while running the country.
@Beeblebrox
I wouldn’t call Libertarianism exactly right wing.
As I noted, politics then and today are different, and the mix of issues between the parties then and now are different.
Jefferson would not like many of the issues Liberals today call their own, nor would he be really comfortable with the Conservatives at all.
In actuality, neither the left nor the right can use Jefferson as a “Founding Father” of their own ideas!
You’re right, he was anti-Federalist and Pro-States rights. But he still wanted to keep religion out of Government – at all levels!
He was not always consistent, either – he owned slaves, but wanted to free them, but not at his expense! Now we know he even had children by one of his slaves!
See my post above, I KNOW he had no issues with Christians individually, but he distrusted the organizations that wanted to garner political power. As with other Deists of his age, he rejected the Bible, the Trinity, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. To say he had no problem with Christianity is not true, it was the individuals practicing it he had no problem with! He believed in a strict religious tolerance for ALL religions – as long as they (as you said) stayed out of the affairs of state.
In sum, like I said, to try to paint the Founding Fathers with the brush of Conservatism is wrong – but (you are right) I should have also noted that they weren’t Liberals, either!
@rahrens.
There is certainly some basis for believing that some of the founders were simply deists who believed in God (and it would have been Jehovah not Allah but I digress) but there is plenty of evidence that your assertion that “all” were Deists is outright FALSE. If that is your belief then you are welcome to it but a reading of the words of the first signer of the Declaration shows you to be utterly, completely, and absolutely wrongheaded in this regard:
On April 15, 1775, the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts declared A Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer, signed by the President of the Provincial Congress, John Hancock:
“In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgements …. All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness – and all created Power Vanity;
“It is the Happiness of his Church that, when the Powers of Earth and Hell combine against it… that the Throne of Grace is of the easiest access – and its Appeal thither is graciously invited by the Father of Mercies, who has assured it, that when his Children ask Bread he will not give them a Stone ….
“RESOLVED, That it be, and hereby is recommended to the good People of this Colony of all Denominations, that THURSDAY the Eleventh Day of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer … to confess the sins … to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgression … and a blessing on he Husbandry, Manufactures, and other lawful Employments of this People; and especially that the union of the American Colonies in Defence of their Rights (for hitherto we desire to thank Almighty GOD) may be preserved and confirmed …. And that AMERICA man soon behold a gracious Interposition of Heaven.”
“By Order of the [Massachusetts] Provincial Congress, John Hancock, President.”
If one were to boil down your posts into one salient thought it would appear to be this:
“Yes, the founders were more conservative then judged by our standards now but if they had been truly able to say what they believed unfettered by the puritans around them, they would have been pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution, anti-Christian secularists.”
I don’t think that John Hancock would agree with you one bit.
Cheers,
-B
“You’re right, [Jefferson] was anti-Federalist and Pro-States rights. But he still wanted to keep religion out of Government – at all levels!
As do I – including Secular Humanism.
@TowerTone
“Your argument gets a little old. By that interpretation, no person who goes to church would be able to hold office.
No lawmaker would be able to associate his beliefs in right and wrong with any law.”
You are building a straw man.
The “wall between church and State” Jefferson wrote about, and we speak of today is NOT an anti-religious rule. It is a rule designed to prevent religious organizations from co-opting the powers of the government to uphold their own sect at the expense of all others. He specifically spoke of it as being as much a PROTECTION of religion as a barrier to it.
It is not intended to keep people out of office, but the Constitution specifically forbids any religious test for holding office! That means you cannot use a person’s religion to keep him out or allow him in. Period, end of story.
The first amendment is intended to prevent government from making rules that favor one religion over another, or persecuting them, either! It is intended to allow ALL religions to practice their beliefs peacefully, without official interference, and to keep the government from forcing the practice of one religious sect on the general population.
My posts have been about Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, and the “disdain for religion” you see there is from their own writings.
Regarding religion, I respect, like Jefferson, your right to worship however you wish. Also, like him, I distrust ORGANIZED religious groups that try to use their numbers to impose their practices on me or the rest of the American People. Keep your religious rituals within your own group, and don’t try to coerce me or anybody else to adhere to them, and PLEASE stop trying to spend my tax money to support your particular beliefs.
@Beeblebrox
Just when I thought we might be able to put this to rest, you put words into my mouth!
I didn’t mention gay rights. You did. what their position would have been, I have no idea. Ask a modern Deist what they think. I am not one.
Modern Deists take a middle position on abortion. They reject it as a method of birth control, but support it as a necessity of medical conditions or in matters of rape or incest. Again, I haven’t read anything on the classical Deist position here, as far as I know, it wasn’t an issue they were fighting about then.
As far as anti-Christian, read what I wrote. They rejected the basic tenets of Christianity as far as their own beliefs were concerned, but supported the right of all Christians to worship as they pleased. If that is anti-Christian, then so be it.
And I am sorry that I inferred that ALL founding fathers were Deists. I didn’t mean to imply that, but the major figures that were instrumental in that movement certainly were, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams, and Franklin certainly were. And I would argue that since their Deist beliefs were written into the D of I and the Constitution, their compatriots were not overly opposed to that thinking!
@rahrens:
I wouldn’t call Libertarianism exactly right wing.
Then you are one of the few my friend.
Libertarianism is just to the left of the most radical right wing philosophy, that being anarchism (every man for themselves).
The Jefferson quote I gave above about the government that governs least is Libertarianism through and through but even Jefferson realized that .
While Libertarians are often not thought of as social conservatives, usually a consistent Libertarian will be fairly socially conservative. For example. Social conservatives don’t like the idea of pushing secular and liberal theology in the schools (homosexuality, evolution, AIDS education, Earth Day, etc.). Libertarians don’t like the idea of public school ITSELF. In other words, if libertarians got their way, social conservatives would be happy.
Libertarians also would prefer to see the government stay out of drug policy (i.e. legalize drugs). Social conservatives that I know and that have talked about this publicly probably would rather see the government stay out of the issue as well except for the negative effects such a policy would have on society as a whole.
Here is the rub for social conservatives. In an ideal world where libertarian ideas ruled EVERYONE would be responsible for their own behavior and would be prosecuted for violating the rights of others. So, in the drug example, the social conservative would prefer not to see the government involved except that wide spread drug use would result in widespread social decay unless we tightened up on law and order issues. If you could drink or shoot up as much as you wanted but would be executed if you were to harm some other person while under the influence or while trying to gain access to more drugs, then probably most social conservatives could be persuaded to go more libertarian. However, that level of law and order often results in the exact opposite effect than that which either libertarians or conservatives want.
The notion that you can do anything you want as long as you don’t harm me actually requires much more of a government strong man than our current system that relies on the good will of our neighbor.
Social conservatives fall between libertarians on the right and the “blue blood” Republicans on the left. We see a need for some level of government to maintain societal discourse while libertarians would prefer that they just simply be left alone. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the latter view because ultimately it forces a huge pendulum swing towards totalitarianism when it is realized that a society just this side of anarchism is a society where only the strong can survive.
“Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:
* A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. “
I don’t see anything there that is virulently anti-religion.
I don’t see anything that would prevent you from worshiping as you see fit.
I don’t see anything that specifically speaks against any religion.
So, by definition, you appear to want religion in government?
What DO you want?
I am appalled that so many of you kiddies have consumed gallons of Right Wing GOP (Geriatric Old Pedophile) party nonsense.
Way to be individuals! Let Karl Rove speak for you!
One must weep for this once great nation. NeoCons have pissed on the Constitution until it disintegrated.
@Beeblebrox
From the site Libertarianism.com:
On issues of personal liberty, libertarians may sound like liberals. On economic issues, libertarians may sound like conservatives. Which are they? Or — are they something else entirely?
Actually, the reason libertarians sound like people of other positions is that many of those other positions sound like libertarians! For example, conservatives have a tendency to be libertarian on economic issues, and liberals have a tendency to be libertarian on issues of personal liberty.
In fact, virtually everyone is libertarian on some issues. You might say libertarianism is the common denominator!
Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Harry Browne put it this way: “I don’t agree with the idea that a libertarian is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It is a mistake to define libertarians in terms of conservatives or liberals. Conservative politicians are as fiscally imprudent as liberals, and liberal politicians are as contemptuous of individual rights as conservatives.
“Libertarians stand for individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. Conservatives and liberals each sometimes take positions similar to libertarians, but — unlike libertarians — there is no consistent principle running through all their political positions. “
I don’t think Libertarians think of themselves that way at all!
Hitler gave away free pix, too.
Hitler gave away free pix, too.
Well, I guess this discussion is over.
You know what gets to me? The sheer hatred toward Rush. It’s alright for Imus and other MSNBC and CNN jocks to use near expletives scalding “the other side”, but I will tell you Rush DOESN’T utter a single four-letter word in his broadcasts nor hawk the rancor and malice toward those on the other side, which regularly does so as its staple. He might zing and prick your POV, but he doesn’t wish you dead (like too many “doves” on the other side literally do with relish). I’m a former “other side” black American who knows what real hatred is from over forty years back, and it ain’t Rush. So I wish his detractors would bury the hatchet when it comes to common interests on Macs and appreciate that Rush’s likely more responsible for millions of Mac sales than Apple or Jobs will EVER have the grace and guts to stand up and just say thanks.
James Greenidge
George Bush
Bill O’Reilly
Rush Limbaugh
Dick Cheney
If anything, you dipshits are certainly predictable….
Are you kidding?? You’ve just NAMED the four biggest dipshits in America!
you call yourself conservatives and yet you spent all our money in no time flat and have now maxed out our credit cards to foreign countrys. what is wrong with being liberal? i guess you are jealous of all of the money, power and fame we get and all of our girlfriends that hang out with us rock stars. you hate the fact that you don’t have any of that so you instead blame people of color, women, sexual minorites and rig the system so you can get a piece of the action because you are so insecure. in the meantime, you all spend all your money at the sex shops, strip clubs and go to tailand because you are to ugly to have any chance of getting sex or love from anyone with half a brain. hahahaha…
Nothing like your local fascist endorsing your products, well done Apple!
What’s this then, eh? Something like: “As long as it sells, I don’t mind” – Steve ‘Sieg Heil’ Jobs ? Or what?
I think we already covered the “Hitler” angle in a post above, once again proving Godwin’s Law. Try again.
I love MDN’s warning:
Off-topic and posts from suspected astroturfers will be removed.
Too bad they won’t abide by their own censoring policy and delete off-topic articles.