Limbaugh: "We Need Segregated Buses"

[prole]

 

At this particular time, killing Rush Limbaugh would be a strategic mistake.

and satan wacking j.c. before he could fit into the adult sized bathrobe woula been wise too

 

there is no problem you're gonna kill your way out - marat and robespierrre, extremist libtards of a long-gone era and land, certainly proved that

 

extremism is the enemy, whatever flavor it chooses to come in

 

Another argument would be that progressive movements have generally ridden the backs of their more extreme factions while the moderate elements take all the credit.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

how old are you? just cause you can find an entry on urban dictionary doesn't make it so. Coming from in situ experience, the definitions stand as I stated them. Maybe on the interwebs you can pull it off but among those who know, you do not.

 

back in college we always referred to a chode using the definition that I gave.

 

the reference to Urban dictionary just gives immediate backup to the fact that the term has this meaning.

 

chode-boy may think his nickname is unambiguous, but to me he'll always be that sweaty streak of skin between a ball-sack and an asshole.

 

 

[ivan]

Another argument would be that progressive movements have generally ridden the backs of their more extreme factions while the moderate elements take all the credit.

i don't know that i understand this, but please explain to me how killing rush limbaugh at any time would have made the world a better place

 

rush filled a vacuom, and it is the latter that is the problem, not the former - rush is powerful b/c idiots give him power - our narrowminded coutnrymen who get their jollies off him could jsut have easily crowned another apostle of hate, and will too, when he's gone - rush is the flower, the millions of red-blooded conservatives are the roots - if you're gonna kill your way out of this problem, be ready to be like robespierre. i assume you know how that went?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You guys are great. No one here at work would believe me if I told them what I was reading right now.

 

welcome back!

[prole]

Another argument would be that progressive movements have generally ridden the backs of their more extreme factions while the moderate elements take all the credit.

i don't know that i understand this, but please explain to me how killing rush limbaugh at any time would have made the world a better place

 

rush filled a vacuom, and it is the latter that is the problem, not the former - rush is powerful b/c idiots give him power - our narrowminded coutnrymen who get their jollies off him could jsut have easily crowned another apostle of hate, and will too, when he's gone - rush is the flower, the millions of red-blooded conservatives are the roots - if you're gonna kill your way out of this problem, be ready to be like robespierre. i assume you know how that went?

 

See "strategic mistake" post above.

[ivan]

Another argument would be that progressive movements have generally ridden the backs of their more extreme factions while the moderate elements take all the credit.

i don't know that i understand this, but please explain to me how killing rush limbaugh at any time would have made the world a better place

 

rush filled a vacuom, and it is the latter that is the problem, not the former - rush is powerful b/c idiots give him power - our narrowminded coutnrymen who get their jollies off him could jsut have easily crowned another apostle of hate, and will too, when he's gone - rush is the flower, the millions of red-blooded conservatives are the roots - if you're gonna kill your way out of this problem, be ready to be like robespierre. i assume you know how that went?

 

See "strategic mistake" post above.

i read that - what i'm saying is, how would killing him in the womb, terminator-style, make anything better? rush didn't create the hate, the hate created rush. you can kill rush (and if you had a time machine, long ago before he was anybody). you can't kill hate, in fact killing generally just feeds hate, no?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Another argument would be that progressive movements have generally ridden the backs of their more extreme factions while the moderate elements take all the credit.

i don't know that i understand this, but please explain to me how killing rush limbaugh at any time would have made the world a better place

 

rush filled a vacuom, and it is the latter that is the problem, not the former - rush is powerful b/c idiots give him power - our narrowminded coutnrymen who get their jollies off him could jsut have easily crowned another apostle of hate, and will too, when he's gone - rush is the flower, the millions of red-blooded conservatives are the roots - if you're gonna kill your way out of this problem, be ready to be like robespierre. i assume you know how that went?

 

See "strategic mistake" post above.

i read that - what i'm saying is, how would killing him in the womb, terminator-style, make anything better? rush didn't create the hate, the hate created rush. you can kill rush (and if you had a time machine, long ago before he was anybody). you can't kill hate, in fact killing generally just feeds hate, no?

 

If there's "hate" you can be assured it was created by libtards themselves

[ivan]

If there's "hate" you can be assured it was created by libtards themselves

?

you're saying that the left has a monopoly on hate?

 

ok.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If there's "hate" you can be assured it was created by libtards themselves

?

you're saying that the left has a monopoly on hate?

 

ok.

 

no, what I am saying is that conservatives and religious folks have historically preferred to keep to themselves and mind their own business. But 40 years of libtards forcing their policies on the US and getting into the faces of these folks has pissed them off immeasurably. The animosity that we see today has been caused by this dynamic which has only gotten worse with each administration in power for as long as I can remember (back to Ford). Rush and conservative talk radio started in the mid-80's. There's no coincidence there.

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm kind of for killing all human life, but that's another discussion (Keanu, come back!), Rush and Company are simply capitalizing (in a HUGE way), on the sentiments of the American fascist movement. They are riding a wave...but they are also stoking it, and so are not blameless in whatever results.

 

To kill those you disagree with is fascist. To wish, say, that a bus would have hit GWB in mid 2000 is simply being morally responsible.

[Bug]

I remember.

 

Bug- I get it. Don't worry, I won't come near you. If you PM'd me for an apology, I would have. I can be a nice guy, when people aren't being assholes. Now, well, you are being an asshole.

 

Hugh, what people are thinking is that you need to stop being such a prick by calling everyone else assholes (like this post) and post more trip reports. Bug had a real concern. He's being nice and reaching out here, so don't call him an asshole OK, it's fucking offensive. (spoken in a Miss Manners voice)

 

Maybe we should be taking this over to cafe sensitivo?

 

Thank you Bill.

I stand corrected.

[prole]

But 40 years of libtards forcing their policies on the US and getting into the faces of these folks has pissed them off immeasurably.

 

Let's go for a hundred years, shall we?

 

Labor Agitation

Women's Suffrage

The New Deal

Civil Rights Movement

Free Speech Movement

Sexual Revolution

Antiwar Movement

Gay Rights

Anti-Nuke Movement

Etc.

 

 

[Pete_H]

Yeah, religious folks love to keep to themselves. Especially when advocating for state interferance into women's reproductive rights and bans on stem-cell research.

 

Then they complain about a bigger and overbearing government.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yeah, religious folks love to keep to themselves. Especially when advocating for state interferance into women's reproductive rights and bans on stem-cell research.

 

both issues are foisted on our politics by libtards in the past 40 years. think before you reply.

 

[Pete_H]

That is correct, if by "foisted on our politics" you mean women having the adacity to challenge anti-abortion laws.

[prole]

i read that - what i'm saying is, how would killing him in the womb, terminator-style, make anything better? rush didn't create the hate, the hate created rush. you can kill rush (and if you had a time machine, long ago before he was anybody). you can't kill hate, in fact killing generally just feeds hate, no?

 

I don't understand "hate" as a political category that's likely to hold up under any kind of sustained analysis. This just seems like lazy language to me. Can you be more specific?

 

Anyway, my point is that under some historical conditions, violence may gain legitimacy as a political tactic when it is widely accepted by a population as part of a broader movement to effect a particular change. That violence from the Left is wholly unacceptable goes without saying (as witnessed by the mass hysteria that accompanies even the slightest property damage from an ELF action). That large portions of the population, their politicians, and mouthpieces in the media are capable of shrugging off right wing domestic terrorism as mere unfortunate but sometimes necessary episodes shows that violence as a means has gained at least semi-legitimacy among those powerful segments of society.

 

I am in agreement with you that Leftists assassinating individuals would, at this point, not be very effective and would do nothing to address underlying structures (from the Right may be a different story). This is not to say that violence of this kind wouldn't be (or isn't) catalytic under different conditions. Revolutions, slave revolts, anticolonial struggles, sabotage come to mind. Suggesting that violence is unacceptable under any conditions obfuscates historical processes by which things have come to be and unless one's a pacifist in absolute terms would be pure hypocrisy.

[Ponderosa]

Ah, but what is a 'tvash'?

 

synonym for "tiny choad"

[ivan]

I don't understand "hate" as a political category that's likely to hold up under any kind of sustained analysis. This just seems like lazy language to me. Can you be more specific?

 

hate isn't a poltical category - hate is one of our deepest human emotions, as powerful as love if not more so, since it's much easier to come by (unless you have a bottomless supply of ecstasy and don't live someplace fucking hot) - hate buzzes around and through us all the time, some of us more than others - hate is a renewable resource, as regular as rain - hate goads man to most every despicable act he's capable of, and is the starting point for most folks politics - the well-spring of hate bubbles over, and leaders point to someone or something to vent it off - no party has a monopoly on it.

[ivan]

as for violence being productive sometimes, sure, okay - it keeps us from getting too bored, i reckon - to steal from adams, we're not much more than hairless apes w/ digital watches though, and its not like there's some way everything is supposed to be - kill/don't kill, coke/pepsi, van halen/van hagar, whatever - i'd just appreciate it if the neighbors wouldn't play their music so fucking loud when i'm trying to sleep, ya know?

[tvashtarkatena]

Violence is usually a result of ignorance: underestimating your enemy and overestimating your own prowess. The unintended consequences start immediately. It spreads in weird ways and more often than not comes right back at the perp. Action/Reaction. After a short while it takes on its own momentum and pretty soon nobody can remember how it all started or why.

 

BTW, I've got a 50 calibre machine gun in my house.

[Fairweather]

Ah, but what is a 'tvash'?

 

I have answered this question before. It is a pimple on the surface of a large crusty boil that is venting gas into space even as we speak.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

That's not a Tvash, it's a Tvashtar Catena. The venting of sulphur dioxide from this, the hottest volcano in the solar system, results in a graceful arching plume, as much as 150 km high, that glows iridescent blue as it is ionized by Jupiter's Van Allen radiation belt. It's truly one of the most spectacular phenomena on any world.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Ah, but what is a 'tvash'?

 

Here's a Tvash:

 

[ivan]

Violence is usually a result of ignorance: underestimating your enemy and overestimating your own prowess. The unintended consequences start immediately. It spreads in weird ways and more often than not comes right back at the perp. Action/Reaction. After a short while it takes on its own momentum and pretty soon nobody can remember how it all started or why.

 

BTW, I've got a 50 calibre machine gun in my house.

violence is just as often a result of a sensible calculation - the wild west as case in point - the indians don't have shit for soldiers or weapons, but they have a lot of land - we want the land and everythign that comes w/ it, and we have a hell of a lot more guys n' guns - charge!

[Pete_H]

Apparently the indians had a lot more soldiers until we gave them our first gift, smallpox.