Skip to content

October 25, 2011


More Crack Breitbart Video: Is Rush Limbaugh or Al Qaeda More Dangerous to America?

by RogueOperator

It would be nice if these brilliant New Yorkers would have some basic facts about Rush instead of parroting Media Matters talking points.

First of all, Rush is on the radio, and not on television. Hell, sane Americans went out of their way to actually not watch television when Rush resurrected the AM dial. This is because millions of Americans were sick of all the left-wing propaganda on television. The left owned the entire media for the most part when Rush had a brief stint on television before going to talk radio.

Second, Rush is not an establishment or an uncritical Republican. Rush busts the establishment’s chops all the time, criticizes Wall Street and the government for bailouts and stimulus, and mercilessly slams non-conservative, unprincipled Republicans. Limbaugh is an ideas man, and cares deeply about his principles. One cannot say the same for 90% of Democrats. (Anti-war movement, anyone?)

For the left, anyone with any principle is no different than al Qaeda, regardless of the kind of principle one holds dear. Unless you’re a moral and cultural relativist, you’re a fanatic. Christians are like “American al Qaeda,” even though they want to preserve life, not end it.

More left-wing fantasy brought to us by MRC and Breitbart.

Read more from American Politics
4 Comments Post a comment
  1. Matt
    Oct 27 2011

    Rush is without a doubt more dangerous at this point.
    al Qaeda has been beaten down for a decade by the immense power of the US military and right now cannot possibly have much left to organize any kind of serious attack.

    However Rush’s anti-health care, anti-climate change could effectively sway the next election as well as public opinion. Could public health care save 3000 lives? Could climate change spawn Katrina 2 and destroy another major city? If yes, then Rush is (by the numbers) more dangerous.

    • Oct 27 2011

      I love it when lefties come on the website with their cute little comments. You know, some people are able to dissect arguments logically, and use them to pillory their purveyor.

      We will ignore the ignorant al Qaeda aspect of the argument, because that is only a foil to show how the left morally equates mass murder with dissent in the realm of free speech.

      It takes a real charlatan to allege that Rush is “anti-health care.” It betrays a childish notion that the provision of a good or service must necessarily be in the hands of the totalitarian state or else it would not exist; or at the very least, resistance to state control of healthcare is tantamount to opposing the provision of that good or service; and tacitly, that the state necessarily and inextricably should be associated with superior and more equitable healthcare.

      Let me be the first, apparently, to disabuse you of this blind assertion. Every state from Ghana to Mongolia to El Salvador can unilaterally assume control over healthcare and declare it the monopolistic provider of medicine. Does that mean people will receive adequate healthcare? Hardly.

      It’s the free market system, as debauched as it is in the United States and throughout North America and Europe, that has led to the high standard of living in these countries, and the capacity to deliver outstanding individually tailored healthcare. Kneecap this system by collectivizing it, like in every backwards Asiatic or Africanic nation, and you remove the foundation for the high provision of care. In America, you take one-sixth of the economy and suck the vitality out of it. You basically turn our hospitals into the DMV with surgical equipment. Advocating this state of affairs is being “pro-healthcare”? Chalk me up on the “anti-healthcare” side as well, please.

      Beyond the poorer and/or declining standard of healthcare, and by association, the vast amounts of unsustainable debt, there are the political implications. If one does not control one’s own health, one does not control his life. Therefore, one cannot be a free citizen. This may be absolutely of no consequence for you personally, for the paternalistic impulse may be so deeply ingrained that you cannot appreciate its importance, but when a state assumes such a parental point of view towards the citizenry, it infantalizes them, and winds up with grown children. The state is not the thing; it’s the people who must fund the state, must work and develop the economy, and comprise the nation that should be your focus.

      As far as Rush being “anti-climate change” goes, he does not deny that climate changes, he just does not believe man is responsible for it. And he is not alone. The enviroleft’s millenarian prattle that mankind is threatening the planet merely be being alive and producing goods using industrial technology, well, that fairy tale book is quickly coming to a close. The children are leaving the daycare, bored after twenty years of apocalyptic fearmongering, used as a pretext for hundreds of billions in grant funding and ever growing state control over economy and natural resources. The sea levels are not going to swallow Florida or New York, at least not in our lifetimes. Man is responsible for less than 1/300 of the greenhouse gas effect, which is not even the only contributor to the warming of the earth. The developed world is not going to commit economic or even physical suicide on behalf of some half-cooked theory that a gaggle of bipeds are sullying the planet to such an extent that life as we know it could come to an end. Check the population count lately? Almost five billion and going strong. Life expectancy? Seventy and going up. Man must be doing something right. If we are getting more predominant and living longer because of manmade global warming, then the miniscule amount man contributes to the greenhouse effect must be beneficial, after all.

      As far as “climate change,” well then, climate changes. If that is a bit too tautological for one to grasp, let us just say that the world was an even warmer and more tumultuous place before mankind even showed up. And there was an Ice Age, it must be realized, only ten thousand years ago. If civilization initiated and started thriving once the arctic glaciers began receding, what are we to make of the blank assertion that warming is necessarily bad? And by extension, that industrial civilization, which gave us modern medicine and the mass production to distribute it, is bad?

      We must conclude that the modern left is anti-civilization, desirous of turning millions of people into a primitive tribe, sitting in the dirt waiting for the end of the world, our maladies attended to by the village medicine men. I’m only being half-facetious here.

      • Jan 24 2012

        Republicans want dirty air, water, and to kill children! If we confiscate all the wealth of the 1%, then the planet will cool and we can all eat tofu and live in trees together! If the state doesn’t take over healthcare and ration it out as it sees fit, then no one will get healthcare and children will die! Anyone who believes differently is a RRRAAAACCIIIIISSSTTTT!!!!!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Danger! Danger! « Daily Ruminations

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: