Skip navigation.

Limbaugh's delicate way with words

Recently Tom Fox of the Christian Peacemaker's Team in Iraq was murdered by a group calling themselves the Swords of Righteousness Brigade. By all accounts he was an extraordinary man doing an extraordinary work in Iraq. When he was kidnapped in November, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said the following:

"This could all be BS. I mean, we've never heard of the Swords of Righteousness Brigade. This could all be a stunt, but let's take it -- well, let's take it both ways. We'll take it face value at first, then we'll look at it as a stunt second. I said at the conclusion of previous hours -- part of me that likes this. And some of you might say, "Rush, that's horrible. Peace activists taken hostage." Well, here's why I like it. I like any time a bunch of leftist feel-good hand-wringers are shown reality.... Fine, they get kidnapped. They get kidnapped at gunpoint. If that version of this is true, then -- OK, you've met the bad guys, and you tried your technique on them, and now you're blindfolded in a room with guns pointed at you and knives at your throat. I don't like that. But any time a bunch of people that walk around with the head in the sand practicing a bunch of irresponsible, idiotic theory confront reality, I'm kind of happy about it, because I'm eager for people to see reality, change their minds if necessary, and have things sized up."

Any comments? For the full transcript click here.

So... is this is

So... is this is representative of the Christian right?

Junkie Pig does it again

I don't understand how anyone could possibly stand Rush Limbaugh. Why do people listen to him? Why do people follow him?

Limbaugh isn't alone. Bill Oreilly, Michael Savage, Mike Reagan, Rusty Humpries, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Why do people listen to this crap?

Loss of human life is always

Loss of human life is always a tragic thing.

But does the fact that someone dies necessitate that we simply bow our heads, express sadness and move on?

Stupidity is stupidity, regardless of how unfortunate its consequences may be, and I think it needs to be pointed out. Just because someone's stupidity results in their death shouldn't somehow shield them from criticism.

Now in the way of a disclaimer, I don't know much about this particular incident. I'm talking in general about people doing stupid things and getting themselves killed in the process.

Idiocy reigns supreme on both sides

Savage, Hannity, and Limbaugh are simply saying what appeals to their targeted audiences. I doubt they're converting anybody to conservative thinking.
Then again, the left-wing isn't without its top-flight say-anything-to-appease-the-crowd "intellectuals." Coming to mind pretty quick are Dan Rather, Maxine Waters, and a few others.

The bottom line is: If you like listening to things at a sixth grade level, listen to or watch the mainstream media. If you can form your own opinions, then by all means, stay far, far away.

And as far as what Rush said, I think he's a jerk for saying it, but his point was one I can understand. Not many of us can stand ideologues whose ideals won't stand up to the pressure of reality. However, saying that anybody deserves to get taken hostage and killed-- that's abhorrent.

Can I call Limbaugh...

a [edited by admin] on this forum?

Oh, that's what I figured...

I like my new screen name anyways. Thanks for the banny, McBanny. Cheers.

Rebuke and Conversational Terrorism

THANK YOU MASON! - for banning foul language. I'm sorry if I didn't notice previous such edits.

I will here simultaneously rebuke Steven Greenstreet, confess and expose my own favored variations of Conversational Terrorirsm, and expose the same of Greenstreet's comments. You may find it necessary to read that link before proceeding.

Steven Greenstreet, as you may all know, is known here as Minority_Films, and has now added another pseudonym: Middle_of_Mayhem.

I. Rebuke. - Proceeding from Worst to Least.

Greenstreet, you've found it necessary to moderate what others say at your own blog, but continue here at someone else's blog with language you know will definitely offend others and probably be moderated. If it is then moderated or proposed for it, you mock proponents of moderation, such as yours truly, and now Mason. But if others should be mocked for the very thing you have found necessary yourself, should you yourself be mocked? You were wise to admit at your blog that you are hypocritical, but it's time to take that knoweldge into action, man, surprise the world by not doing the predictable, and shut up with the foul words in cyberspace.

You've been told many times how your behavior divides (such as at that link).

I'm sympathetic to a verbal habit of foul language, but not a typed one. At a keyboard, you can stop and control what you say.

That said, your swearing has of course been funny at times (the blurb cited at that link is attributed to this here Greenstreet). Not in excess though.

II. Delineation of Witnessed Variations of Conversational Terrorism.

My entire tactic here, of course, is a counter-delay tactic WORD SALAD, a.k.a. SESQUIPEDALIANISM, and also a Cheap Shot Tactics and Irritant FILIBUSTER. I've used these heavily in recent memory. Whether these tactics here are Conversational Terrorism is a matter of debate, because I am describing what is going on, and owning a wrong might pardon it - if I don't continue in excess after this, which I won't.

I think Greenstreet devised the title McBanny as a Sleight of Mind Fallacy attempt to demerit Mason's censorship - by unfairly beginning to paint Mason in the LUNATIC FRINGE. It may also be a kind of Delay Tactic BRAIN SEIZURE, as we have to identify just what "McBanny" means. The more obvious part of the delay tactic is in showing he will simply come back under a new name if he is banned, to buy more time to continue being foul, mean to others etc. Note that he promises no self-moderation but I do. Of course my record gives reason to doubt my promise, but I aim to surprise by changing. Greenstreet's response can also probably be seen as one of many Cheap Shot Tactics and Irritants, such as a COMPLIMENTARY INSULT, or NAME IT, LOOK AT YOU or YOU'LL PAY FOR THAT.

How ugly it all is.

In the past, people have responded to my delay tactics with Ad Hominem Variants such as EVEN YOU, YOU'LL GET OVER IT, and WISHFUL THINKING, along with all of the Sleight of Mind Fallacies (I'm not kidding, as I look at that list), and the Delay Tactic of DESCRIBE THE QUESTION, the Cheap Shot Tactics and Irritants HYPOTHETICAL INSULT and LOOK AT YOU, a disguised YOU'LL PAY FOR THAT, and PRETEND AD HOMINEM - so I hope none of those will be used in reply to this. Please be original if you decide to resort to Conversational Terrorism.

Alex Hall sometimes writes ungodly long responses...

[edited by admin]


Thank you very much for the edits, Mason. Of course I have to point them out for my obsession ;)


Mason, I was trying to test the limits of censorship on this public forum. Thanks for answering my question. Seriously. And I think Alex is championing this as some kind of moral religious crusade, but I didn't mean any harm in calling Rush Limbaugh a [censored].

Alex Hall, you [edited by admin]

Life imitates "The Anchorman"

Wow, that escalated quickly.


RC, you're so wise. You're like a miniature Buddha.


I've been likened to a lot of historical figures, but you're the first one to compare me to a miniature Buddha (apropos, as I could never have the girth to measure up to a full-size Buddha). I'll add it to my list. Thanks!


You know what me missing the meaning behind that quote means?
I'm watching Anchorman this Friday. Obviously, it's been too long since my last viewing.


If you will sadistically meddle with me using foul and harrasing language all you want,


Whatever, yawn...

Look, you wrote a 5 page term paper on how I'm "a terrorist". So, with all due respect, you're a little obsessive in your analysis and you open yourself up for textual retaliation. Retaliation that, in my opinion, involves you needing to get laid.

Why I love right-wing radio

Re: "Why do people listen to this crap?"

I happen to be a hate-radio junkie. This is why I listen:

1) It makes me feel superior. Nothing boosts my self-esteem like listening to Michael Savage take calls from his listeners. The blind leading the blind.

2) Repetitive radio music has driven me to the AM dial.

3) The "traffic accident" effect. Intellectual rubber-necking. How stupid can it get? Did anyone get hurt? Ouch, that was an idiotic argument! Oohhh, look at the damage to that car! How low can Limbaugh go? I wonder if this accident will be on the news. I wonder if anyone will call to challenge O'Reilly's latest lie.

NOT stupidity, nobility

Stupidity is stupidity,

This isn't stupidity. Fox lived his beliefs bravely, he should be honored not dismissed.

It's certainly dangerous to go to Iraq and help the poeple there but it's far from stupid.

yes, but it will get you

yes, but it will get you banned.

It always goes both ways

I agree with you nearly 100% on Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage etc.. all just spout annoying conservative rhetoric. Listening to them for 5 minutes is worse than 100 years in purgatory.

That being said, I felt nearly the same way after watching Fahrennheit 9/11 or watching Bill Mayer for a short period of time. Such blantant and biased propaganda from both sides is hard for me to understand. Sure every once and an while, Limbaugh or Moore will hit on a point that I agree with
(even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while) but for the most part they just ignore that there might be another way to look at an issue. Why do any of these people have audiences?

Additionally, it seems to me that for the most part my conservative friends try to distance themselves from Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly (probably embarrassed to subscribe to the same general ideology as these guys) but my liberal friends sing the praises of Michael Moore all day long. Why is that? Are some of my liberal friends just incapable of recognizing propaganda when they here it or is Moore truly more reasonable that his crazy conservative counterparts?

Lastly, In my opinion the only reason anyone would listen to any of this garbage except to reinforce their already established opionions and feel good about themselves. Seems like a pathetic reason to view media.

» parent | reply | email this comment

Ron Burgendy

RC, no, no no...

That's a quote from "The Anchorman", remember? Ron Burgendy is asking advice from his dog and then says, "Baxter, you're so wise. You're like a miniature Buddha".

You quoted "The Anchorman" in your last post, so I was just adding my own quote.


my theory

My conspiracy theory is that rahall and Minorty_Films/Middle_of_Mayhem are actually the exact same person who just likes to troll PP with their never ending back and forths. ok, so I don't mean to insult either of them if i am wrong, but it just seems like it is way over the top sometimes.

I tried wading through all

I tried wading through all that, and my eyes just sort of glazed over after the first three chapters. In all seriousness, I am amazed that you (rahall) can be so obsessive about something so trivial as an online "offender".

At first your comments were amusing, then annoying, now amazing. There's just no way a normal person could get so worked up about nothing at all. You've gotta be some sort of supernatural.

Re: anyways..

In keeping with my promise to be more brief, I'll say this as shortly as I can.

Greenstreet plays innocent while he knows his actions are not. His remark to me repeats exactly the kind of language I have explicitly asked him not to use with me before, and in the very midst of repeating such an offense he claims to Mason to be "trying to test the limits". He knows the limits. He has heard scores of complaints for foul language at a similar forum I've been at. What offends people is no surprise; his real test is whether anyone else will do something about his language. He abrogates responsibility for his own self-moderation and turns forums into hell for it. His scapegoat is exaggerating my very justified hurt as "..a religious moral crusade." That's the same divestment of his responsibility which he put into mocking and blaming Mason with a label of "McBanny". This is not a religious issue; that's Greenstreet's smokescreen. Respect for sexual decency and clean language is a universal human need. Greenstreet chronically violates it, and is also chronically surprised when it hurts people.

I need you to edit Greenstreet's sexually harrasing remark to me from that post, Mason. It's very, very violating.


project mayhem

re: Whatever, yawn...

Semantic trickery. A terrorist bombs buildings and so forth. I'm talking about your conversational terrors. And an attribute is not the whole; it would be as logical to say you are a duck because you engage in quackery. And there's no respect in your now repeating a third time exactly the kind of language I've asked you not use and which Mason has banned. And you decide to attack me and it's not my doing.

Don't take the analogy too

Don't take the analogy too tightly, but Christ was also a man who lived life dangerously doing good for people when he didn't have to and knew it would get him killed. Of course he was God and knew he couldn't be killed unless he allowed it, but there are many examples in the scriptures of men putting their lives in peril to help their fellow man. One that immediately comes to mind is Ammon who went into enemy territory to preach the gospel. Another is Nephi and Lehi of Helaman 5 who went into the heart of enemy territory during a huge war to preach the gospel and incidently ended up stopping the war. I agree that Tom Fox is to be honored if all that I've heard of him is true.

Why are you talking to me?

How is this related to you? I said to you earler, talk to the hand. Oh, that's it. I dismissed your comment as unreasoned, so now you are back to dish it back.

In that comment, you argued for making a problem go away by ignoring it. And here you are back again talking to me, not ignoring me. And your latest proposal resorts to the Ad Hominem Variant of YOU'LL GET OVER IT.

Please remember the core of my debate is that foulmouths should be censored here. And I think you would also be upset if someone challenged your sexuality. I've vied for censorship and gotten some; you vie for censors to go away. I've tried that and it encourages foul language. You also know full well I will never agree with your approach, so accept our differences.

Or talk to the hand.

Amusing story

I am a clone. If I had my way the Jungle would be live 24/7 and nothing else would really matter. That being said...

Rome happened to be in the basement, or he was interviewing some hockey player or baseball player or something like that and so I flipped the dial over to 1280 the Zone and they were on commercial or talking about something stupid so I ended up on Limbaugh's show. What, you thought I would flip to Air America? Yeah right. I would listen to Rush's show more often, but to me Jim Rome is Radio God and everybody has little to no importance to me.

I ran through that pointless excercise to get to this point... I was listening to the show when Rush told this story and here was my thought, and I was reminded of it when I read this story:

A peace activist expected to be treated differently than everybody else from the land of the Great Devil? He must have been smoking his peace pipe too long. (The group I was with later that day thought that I was a comic genius.)

If it was stupid for the Army to go there in the first place then it was doubly stupid for some idealist to go there and to expect treatment above all of the other people from the Great Satan. Read some Al Qaeda training materials... they expect us to crumble under the threat of one of our citizens being killed. They forgot to update their training sessions after Bush took office.

What should Fox be honored for? Commiting suicide? If he went over there to try and convince the iRaqi resistance, terrorists, Brotherhood of People who Like to Kill People, whatever, he could have given the money to get over there to one of his causes and then commited suicide. He probably would have done more good that way.

Rush Limbaugh is a prophet.

If you haven't heard, the other 3 people who were being held captive have now been rescued by American and British soldiers. You would think that in the press release released by the group after the rescue, there would at least be a "thank you" to the people who risked their lives making it possible for the hostages to see their kids again. Instead they have this to say:

We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

Because we all know if the occupying forces left Iraq today, those kidnappers and murderers would just go home and take up gardening. Now, Rush Limbaugh said in the transcript that they would find a way to blame Bush for this, but they stop just short of that and blame the soldiers instead. So he's not really a prophet, but he's close. By contrast, these are the words they have for the terrorists:

Today, in the face of this joyful news, our faith compels us to love our enemies even when they have committed acts which caused great hardship to our friends and sorrow to their families.

These people really have no shame. You need to love your enemies, but it would probably be helpful to know who your the enemies are. It almost might help to stay grounded in reality. In the end, it was the "illegal occupiers" that captured an insurgent and got the information as to the location of the hostages, and it was the "illegal occupiers" that freed them, not the smelly hippies and their lofty ideals.