Media Matters' Un-American Assault on Limbaugh

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Yeah, I thought it was ironic how they always claim to love Jesus, yet booed when asked to live by his message.

Sad, but true, unfortunately.

BTW, I used to go to Chattanooga all the time when I lived in Dayton years ago.

Oh yeah? I myself have lived here since October. I rather like it, personally. Hard to find people that I can identify with on some issues (mostly political). I'm a bisexual converting to Judaism and has an Evangelical family with a neo-pagan bisexual fiancee who has a Catholic family, and pretty much everyone in Tennessee is extreme Evangelical Republican

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

They booed the idea that the Golden Rule should be used to formulate foreign policy, as Ron Paul suggested.

That's not what was being suggested. What was being suggested was that we ought to "live by the Golden Rule" in that we treat other nations we are not at war with and aren't really a current, present threat to us as we would want them to treat us.

Basically, invading Pakistan to murder a guy is bad, because if Pakistan invaded the U.S. to murder a guy we'd turn them into glass.

 

[stiggywiggy]

That's not what was being suggested. What was being suggested was that we ought to "live by the Golden Rule" in that we treat other nations we are not at war with and aren't really a current, present threat to us as we would want them to treat us.

Basically, invading Pakistan to murder a guy is bad, because if Pakistan invaded the U.S. to murder a guy we'd turn them into glass.

Great idea. If Turkistan asks us for 16 billion dollars in foreign aid, let's give them 32 billion.

But it's strange that you think a nation should live the Golden Rule only for its non-enemies, especially when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek to our enemies. Why is Christianity good foreign policy for one and not the other?

Wait. I just thought of something. Maybe George W Bush, being the fundie that all you lefties thought he was, maybe he was the first to apply Christianity to foreign policy. Maybe when he got word of the first tower being hit, he turned the other tower.

 

[purpledolphin8402]

Great idea. If Turkistan asks us for 16 billion dollars in foreign aid, let's give them 32 billion.

But it's strange that you think a nation should live the Golden Rule only for its non-enemies, especially when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek to our enemies. Why is Christianity good foreign policy for one and not the other?

Wait. I just thought of something. Maybe George W Bush, being the fundie that all you lefties thought he was, maybe he was the first to apply Christianity to foreign policy. Maybe when he got word of the first tower being hit, he turned the other tower.

I never said I think the nation should live by the Golden Rule. I just think it's ironic that Republican/Conservatives say this is a Christian Nation, yet boo when asked to live by the teachings of Jesus. It must be convenient to claim to live by something and still be able to pick and choose what to apply it to only when you find it necessary.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Great idea. If Turkistan asks us for 16 billion dollars in foreign aid, let's give them 32 billion.

That's not the Golden Rule, that's something entirely different.

But it's strange that you think a nation should live the Golden Rule only for its non-enemies, especially when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek to our enemies. Why is Christianity good foreign policy for one and not the other?

Where did I say ONLY for non-enemies?

Wait. I just thought of something. Maybe George W Bush, being the fundie that all you lefties thought he was

I'm not a lefty. I'm center-right libertarian.

Maybe when he got word of the first tower being hit, he turned the other tower.

I'll admit, I busted up laughing

 

[stiggywiggy]

I never said I think the nation should live by the Golden Rule. I just think it's ironic that Republican/Conservatives say this is a Christian Nation, yet boo when asked to live by the teachings of Jesus.

You are incorrect. Ron Paul did not ask the audience to "live by the teachings of Jesus," when he was booed. In discussing Iran and other international hotspots, he asked why the USA shouldn't live by the Golden Rule.

"Hello, Mr. Ahmadinejad. This is the President of the USA. I realize that you would like us to do unto you with some fissionalbe uranium and a missle delivery system. I will certainly do that unto you. Expect nuclear materials within days. And if you use it on us, don't worry. We'll turn the other cheek, as soon as we find where our nation's cheek is. Oh, THAT cheek. Yes, you may kick that too."

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

You are incorrect. Ron Paul did not ask the audience to "live by the teachings of Jesus," when he was booed. In discussing Iran and other international hotspots, he asked why we shouldn't live by the Golden Rule.

"Hello, Mr. Ahmadinejad. This is the President of the USA. I realize that you would like us to do unto you with some fissionalbe uranium and a missle delivery system. I will do this unto you. Expect nuclear materials within days."

Why do you insist on taking things out of context and then blowing them out of proportion?

 

[purpledolphin8402]

You are incorrect. Ron Paul did not ask the audience to "live by the teachings of Jesus," when he was booed. In discussing Iran and other international hotspots, he asked why the USA shouldn't live by the Golden Rule.

Yes, which was preached by Jesus, who Christians claim to follow and then booed when asked why the USA shouldn't live by what Jesus preached (which in this case was the Golden Rule). As I said, I wasn't aware that Christians could pick and choose to follow the rules only when convenient to them.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Yes, which was preached by Jesus, who Christians claim to follow and then booed when asked why the USA shouldn't live by what Jesus preached (which in this case was the Golden Rule). As I said, I wasn't aware that Christians could pick and choose to follow the rules only when convenient to them.

Do you seriously want your President to conduct foreign policy by the Golden Rule? Why cherry-pick Jesus's commands for INDIVIDUALS, if you're going to apply them to nations?

Should LBJ have offered his own life to Oswald? Should Bush have offered Osama the Sears Tower too? Should Reagan have turned his other lung to Hinckley?

 

[JustMeSee]

There is a great deal of grassroots energy against The Rush Limbaugh Show on social media. People are talking and advertisers are listening.

Media Matter and American protests are VERY American. The GOP does not own the words American and Patriot, they just foolishly think they do.

Got to love the freedoms of being American. Put the screws to Rush.

 

[purpledolphin8402]

Do you seriously want your President to conduct foreign policy by the Golden Rule? Why cherry-pick Jesus's commands for INDIVIDUALS, if you're going to apply them to nations?

Should LBJ have offered his own life to Oswald? Should Bush have offered Osama the Sears Tower too? Should Reagan have turned his other lung to Hinckley?

No, again I NEVER said I did. I also didn't realize their were exceptions to the rule. Are you saying that Jesus' teaching aren't practical?

 

[purpledolphin8402]

There is a great deal of grassroots energy against The Rush Limbaugh Show on social media. People are talking and advertisers are listening.

Media Matter and American protests are VERY American. The GOP does not own the words American and Patriot, they just foolishly think they do.

Got to love the freedoms of being American. Put the screws to Rush.

What's funny is that "Liberals" are the ones being blamed for advertisers pulling away from Rush when I know quite a few Conservative who can't stand him and were offended by his comments.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Do you seriously want your President to conduct foreign policy by the Golden Rule?

The general principle of it, yes. I would like to see our government restore America's moral character and compassion. We haven't had it for a very long time.

There was a time the rest of the world liked us. Now we're public enemy number one, and justifiably so.

 

[IAmCatwoman]

Umm... no. In most of these cases, they didn't want homosexuals having equal benefits. In Disney's case, it was because they had "gay days" at their theme parks, just like they have various church days, company days, etc.

In other cases (the AFA boycott of Ford is a great example) it was just because they were advertising in a gay magazine -- which makes it exactly like targeting Limbaugh (they wanted to remove funding for media).

I do believe your double standard is showing.

We're not condemning these groups though like you're condemning liberals for boycotting Limbaugh.

Let's try this one. A bunch of Christian conservative groups boycotted a Muslim TV show a couple years ago. Why? Because it portrayed Muslims in a nice light. Not because it portrayed Christians negatively or conservatives negatively. Only because it portrayed Muslims in a good light - not even what I would call a GOOD light. It portrayed them as human. But Christians protested the sponsors and several sponsors pulled because of it.

And in that case there was absolutely NOTHING questionable about the content. They were protesting only because it is apparently terrible to dare portray a religion other than Christianity in any positive, or even non-negative way.

Also, for the record, Disney doesn't hold "Gay Days" or any church days or anything like that. Disney opens its doors and occasionally holds charitable events or hosts privates events they have no affiliation with. It's the LOCAL COMMUNITIES that hold these special days. Disney has nothing to do with them. Which further shows the IGNORANCE that the conservative groups tend to have. I very rarely hear of liberal ignorance in boycotts. Occasionally I find them misled or a well intentioned misfire, but they always target the right people at least. Whereas Christian conservative groups, especially Focus on the Family, seem to close their eyes and fire randomly and make that the target. Disney is the best example, and their recent boycott of Toys R' Us for carrying the gay Archie comic (which ended up selling out everywhere, ironically).

Hm, it seems liberals have a more diverse portfolio of things they boycott too. Conservatives only seem to boycott gays. A lot. Not even for good reason. Just because places acknowledge their existence in a way that doesn't berate them.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Whereas Christian conservative groups, especially Focus on the Family, seem to close their eyes and fire randomly and make that the target.

Focus on the Family and James Dobson are the most ignorant and idiotic group in America at the present time.

Westboro Baptist is one step above them.

Conservatives only seem to boycott gays. A lot. Not even for good reason. Just because places acknowledge their existence in a way that doesn't berate them.

And Muslims and leftists. Especially gay Muslim leftists

 

[jayem]

Even if he wasn't a jackass, Rush deserves boycotting because of his ties. Hideous. The one on the left looks like it was decorated with a paintball gun. By someone high on Oxy.

 

[conamer]

There is a great deal of grassroots energy against The Rush Limbaugh Show on social media. People are talking and advertisers are listening.

Media Matter and American protests are VERY American. The GOP does not own the words American and Patriot, they just foolishly think they do.

Got to love the freedoms of being American. Put the screws to Rush.

"grass roots"? That's a hoot!

 

[stamperben]

"grass roots"? That's a hoot!

Yes, we know that on the right the power comes down in a sort of rain, the top down rather then the bottom up. I suppose that would be a hoot to you.

 

[acropolis]

?? Limbaugh's feelings are hurt?? He sure doesn't sound like it. Where did you get that from?

So it's incumbent upon YOU to forgive Rush? How did he trespass against thee?

Those meanies at Media Matters are hurting his feelings by giving him the same treatment he gives everyone else, it's so sad that poor guy. Oh he didn't trespass against me, he broke the law by buying prescription drugs, but it's OK because he's rich and therefore never has to actually suffer any consequences for his actions, unlike those reprobates he rails against on his radio show who are too poor to afford decent legal defense.

 

[Publius]

Oh no a radio personality who tirelessly attacks the character of people he's politically opposed to is going to have his character attacked on the radio by people who are politically opposed to him! That poor poor man. No one should ever get a dose of their own medicine.

Well, that's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that the people who condemn Limbaugh for these alleged personal attacks lose any moral high ground they might have had when they turn around and do the same thing they just condemned him for.

They become no better than the one they condemn. The only difference is that they'll sit around and pat one another on the back and then claim that it's "different" when they do it.