A Defense of Rush from an Unlikely Source

[DuctapeFatwa]

Rush Limbaugh is a despicable nonthinking delusional sonofabitch in love with the sound of his own voice spouting opinions that make a potted fern look informed and thoughtful.

And he has every right to spout them, to anyone who wants to listen.

I don't care how offensive his remarks are, or how repulsive I find them, I will defend his right to emit whatever ignorant racist blather he pleases to spew.

Whether ESPN wants to keep him or not is up to ESPN.

The developmentally-challenged PNAC boysinger's cue card was right when he said that the Dixie Chicks have the right to say what they please, and other people have the right to react how they will.

Was it ethical for the bush regime loyalists to organize the Dixie Chick bash?

No. Were they within their rights? Yes.

I think the same of the Rushbash. Rush has the right to advertise his ignorance as loudly and broadly as he wants to, and his audience has the right to react however they want to, within the law. That includes complaining to ESPN or anybody else associated with him. It includes organizing thousands to complain. That's within the law, although it is outside my personal definition of what's ethical.

Neither Rush nor the Dixie Chicks are public employees, they do not speak as the representative of anybody except themselves, and their rights exist independently of whether I agree with them or not.

As it happens, I think the Chicks were just stating the obvious about Bush, and I could care less what Rush thinks about any particular ethnic group or any particular ball thrower. I am not a fan of either bigotry or ball-throwing.

I am, however, a fan of free speech, and it would be hypocritical of me to decry the Mullet sector's lambasting the Chicks for being embarrassed at sharing a state with the most pitiful excuse for a head of state the planet has to offer while cheering on the indignant mob of horrified people who have loved to hate Rush ever since he started getting big bucks for inspiring so much loathing.

(And yes, I voted NO on the new rules)

It would be equally hypocritical of me to roll my eyes at the "war on drugs" and complain about the waste of law enforcement resources on such "crimes" and then turn around and pounce gleefully on the notion that Rush pops pills.

I don't care if you pop pills. I don't care if you do coke, drop acid, or eat a bunch of ecstasy and swim nude in the fountain. I don't even care if you inhale.

And I don't care if Rush does any of that either.

[bloom]

1. That's fine - but I would like to see him face the exact same

consequences as anyone else in court.

And whatever consequences befall him in his career - well - will remain to be seen. He gets no sympathy from me.
:nopity:

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. LOL well I would like to see no one in court for using drugs

And I would like to see laws against all crimes uniformly applied to rich old white men and poor young brown and beige men - but I would go for having the poor brown and beige get the old white fart deal :))

[Cappurr]

2. I agree with everything you said except the last line...

You see.....If you pop pills, you're doing what you feel you want to do. If Rush pops pills 20 minutes later he is on the radio blasting the "duggies" and how rehabs don't work and they should all go to jail for the rest of their lives.

That is the difference. Rush is a big, fat, mentally unstable hypocrite. Sort of like Bob Bennet. Except Bob is not unstable. He is just a hypocrite.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. You are right, he is a hypocrite, and he has a right to be a hypocrite

Being a hypocrite may be sleazy, it may not meet my personal moral/ethical standards, or yours, but it's not against the law at the time of this writing.

[kainah]

3. Bravo, DuctapeFatwa!

Well said. I would also add that this is simply another celebrity scandal which the press is using as a diversion from the big issues in our lives. CIA leak? Uh, no, look over here -- Rush being an ignorant lout who, btw, apparently has a drug addiction. That doesn't affect my life. Presidents who lie and wage wars in my name do matter. That this happens to be Rush Limbaugh rather than Kobe Bryant doesn't change the distractional nature of it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Yep. It's just a more effective distraction

because it is distracting so many people who have 0 interest in Kobe and Laci and Fluffy or whoever's Murder She Raped is this week.

[Pithlet]

7. It's not hypocritical

"It would be equally hypocritical of me to roll my eyes at the "war on drugs" and complain about the waste of law enforcement resources on such "crimes" and then turn around and pounce gleefully on the notion that Rush pops pills."

I do not believe it is hypocritical to point out hypocracy. I think it is a perfectly valid response to point out that someone who's made fun of other's drug problems simply because they're liberal is himself a drug abuser. I don't think it compromises anyone's stance against the war on drugs. Most of the gloating I've seen is at the hypocracy of Rush, of all people, being addicted to drugs, and not simply for the fact that he's an addict. I don't think it is a low blow, either.

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Well, I can point out Rush's hypocrisy, but I don't have to be one myself

I completely agree, hypocrite is definitely one of the disparaging terms that can be accurately applied to Rush.

And I have no problem calling him any and all of them, but he does not set MY standards, and I don't have to be a hypocrite just because he is :D

[Pithlet]

13. But see

I contend that you would not be being a hypocrite :)

I can understand having no desire to delight in Rush's downfall. I'm not (vocally, at least) doing a whole lot of that, myself. I just can't get too worked up over those who are.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. Understood. But I got worked up over the Dixie Chick bashing

And I was disappointed in them when they apologized, and glad to see that they hit #1 as a result of all the publicity.

And while I snarled and sneered at the idiots "boycotting" the Chicks (of whom I have never been much of a fan or a foe, FWIW) I could not say that they were not within their rights - they have the right to build a statue of boosh in their homes and worship it, put on NASCAR tube tops and Chant "USA! USA! Bomb Mecca!" and otherwise spread the news of their scumbaghood as far as their raspy voices can carry.

Notice I am talking about a legal right, in my opinion, they do not have the moral right to do so, but that is MY value system, where I get to make my own laws, as do they...

[OKNancy]

8. You know what? I don't care

I hope Rush gets everything that's coming to him.

[noiretextatique]

11. likewise...this is the third defense of rush thread today

and i still don't care.

[The Magistrate]

9. Th Destruction Of This Creature, Mr. Fatwa

Will cause sufficient damage to the enemy that the means by which it is encompassd are immaterial to me.

You would have expected nothing less from me, surely, Sir?

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. Like Rush, you have every right to your own standards

Neither he nor you nor anyone else but me is obligated to live up to mine.

Nor am I obligated to lower mine to meet yours or his.

[The Magistrate]

18. That Is Why We Get Along So Well, Mr. Fatwa

"Oh look, the sun is setting!'

"No, no, you're confused: the horizon is moving up!"

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. No, it is because you make me think of Cinnabuns

I cannot explain it, but I will have to go and have one now.

[The Magistrate]

39. Do Keep The Large Ones Off Your Rump, Sir

[Bake]

22. Part of the beauty of it

Part of the beauty of Rush's "little problem" is that in exposing his own hypocrisy, it exposes the Pukes in general for what they are, i.e., hypcrites themselves, because he has been their most vocal advocate. I hope the vast middle that has never actually HEARD Limpballs' brand of "conservatism" -- HATRED -- will now realize that such is pretty much par for the course for the likes of Smirk, Delay, etc. etc.

I hope the bastard twists in the wind on this one. The longer the better. Karma's a bitch.

Bake

[MoonAndSun]

14. I agree, Rush has every right to spew his rightwing hatred whenever

and where ever he wants, and ESPN has the right to keep him or let him go, and I and everyone else who cares has the right to bash and slam him and ESPN for what has happened.

[gratuitous]

15. Don't quite understand what you're trying to say . . .

Are you saying that criticizing Rush Limbaugh for his opinions offends your personal ethic? Or that you can only get after Rush for abusing prescription drugs if you're a full-fledged War on Drugs supporter? Or . . . well, what are you trying to say? Because I went over your post a couple of times, and I still don't understand it.

I mean, on one hand, you say, "people have the right to react how they will," and on the other, you say, "It would be equally hypocritical of me to roll my eyes at the 'war on drugs' and complain about the waste of law enforcement resources on such 'crimes' and then turn around and pounce gleefully on the notion that Rush pops pills."

I guess you're saying that criticizing Rush violates your own personal code, but are you saying that that code should extend to everyone else? Also, I'm unclear on what someone's stance on the War on Drugs would have to do with Rush's alleged problem. Are you saying that everyone should have free and unfettered access to drugs that are now legally dispensed only through the intermediary of a licensed physician?

Your post is very confusing.

[DuctapeFatwa]

19. Sorry to be confusing, see if this is simpler

I think Rush has the right to say anything at all he wants to, no matter how stupid.

If I disapproved of bush regime loyalists bashing the Chicks, I cannot in good conscience approve of people who dislike Rush as much as I do bashing him for saying stupid things. Saying stupid things is what he does best.

Yes, I believe people should have fair and unfettered access to drugs, even if they are people that I don't like and don't agree with.

Everything in my post is my personal opinion, reflects my own personal principles, and I do not seek to impose them on anyone else, I am just expressing my opinion.

[gratuitous]

21. Okay, got it, thanks

I'll feel free to ignore it, then. :hi:

[loudnclear]

16. Funny how moral lapses by RW zealots are phoo phooed by the media

while similar moral lapses by liberals (Dems) become major news stories on how such lapses will cause the future degredation of our children and their children for generations. The mainstream media has lost all credibility. On the both the Rush and Arnold issues, the hypocrisy is rampent! The people who let out the news about Arnold are being blamed for telling the truth. You would think that the women who reported on Arnold and who suffered at his hands were the guilty parties and not Arnold. Chirs Matthews is one of the worst hypocrites.

[Eloriel]

23. Do we REALLY need a defense of racist speech on DU?

Aren't there limits of ANY kind here??

Look, Fatwah. There are LAWS against all kinds of speech -- misleading advertising, yelling Fire in a crowded theater, inciting to riot, libel and slander, conspiracy, leaking CIA operatives' identities, and probably a few more I'm not thinking of.

Racist, sexist, homophobic speech HURTS people. It hurts them personally, and it absolutely does foster and promote a climate where they can be hurt physically and in other tangible ways as well (financially, etc.). I am a huge First Amendment supporter, but I have no problem with societal sanctions against hate speech. In fact, I wish hate speech were a crime. In the meantime, I think it's not just an affront to progressivism to defend it for ANY reason, but aids and abets the rightwing bigots to a shocking and unconscionable extent. I'm ashamed of a post like this, along with all the Arnold-defense threads, to appear on DU.

Eloriel

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. No one should be forced to keep his ignorance and stupidity secret

Hate speech says more about, and does more damage to the speaker than those against whom it is directed.

I will defend to the end your right to proclaim whatever insane gibberish you wish to about my ethnic group, my nationality, my choice of religion, footwear or pizza toppings.

What you do NOT have a right to do is take any ACTION that impedes MY right to live, work, worship, marry, shop, reproduce or not, dress, adorn myself, cut my hair or not, live my life.

If you want to go out on the streetcorner and declaim long incoherent diatribes about the Whoevers, you have that right. I have the right to listen, ignore you, agree or disagree with you.

I do NOT have the right to do any harm to you or your property.

Think of it like this: Suppose you drive a Honda Civic.

One day, in the Wal-Mart parking lot, some clown comes along, sneers at your civic, and says either to his companions, you, or the world in general in a loud voice that the Honda Civic is a sign of Satan and anyone who drives one is the Devil's spawn.

Is that really going to hurt you? Do you really need anybody to come shut that person up for you to feel ok about your Civic?

Don't overestimate bigots. Believe me, most of us who have lived long lives on the receiving end don't.

[kentuck]

24. There is a difference between free speech and free "propaganda"

As Rush espouses on his radio show everyday...and there are no dissenting voices...three friggin' hours a day. I cannot defend him.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. I am defending his right to say it, not the substance of what he says

There is a difference. I think you have a right to spew all the propaganda you want. I will defend your right to spew it.

Freedom of speech means your freedom to say things I don't agree with or like.

It means your freedom to say things that I find disgusting and offensive.

There is no need to protect anyone's freedom to express pleasant, non-controversial ideas that almost everyone agrees with.

[kentuck]

35. No, he doesn't have a right to his own propaganda....

Unless I have a right to respond to him on equal terms. He does not have the right to his own station and his own callers and his own ditto heads without question. He is yelling fire in a very crowded theatre and there are no cops around and no one to tell him he is a big fat liar. He does not have that right of "free speech".

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. You have the same right to have a station, or work for one

And say what you want, or what the station wants.

Now if you are talking about the problem of media monopoly, that is a whole nother show, and in my opinion, there should be less monopoly in media ownership and bunch of other areas too.

But he has the freedom to flap his trap how he chooses, and so do you.

[kentuck]

42. Not really....because my message would not be one supported by the..

same promoters of Rush Limbaugh. He is an asset to the Republican Party. He is part of the apparatus. He is a propagandist. No, I should not have a right to get on the "public" airways and spew the party line without offering a chance at a rebuttal of my propaganda. There is a difference in free speech and propaganda. Rush refused to allow any opposing opinions.

[DuctapeFatwa]

44. If his show got public funds, you are absolutely right

If you go on a publicly funded show and express your opinion, for example about the danger the US is in because of the bush regime and their oil-greedy henchmen, I would say that the station should make equal time available to any regime loyalist who wants to come on and explain why God wants Dick Cheney to have more money and for you to work for 50 cents a day.

However, if you want to buy a radio station, and sell ad time on it and use the revenues to pay me to come on there and rip Karl Rove a new one every Tuesday at 7, it is your station and you are under no obligation to allow the local chapter of the Karl Rove Feather Fetishists to come on and rebut me. (ugh. that sounds more than unpleasant).

Now, again, if you want to argue that you should not be allowed to own all the stations in a market, or 80% or whatever % of all stations in a market, I am with you 100%.

But putting teeth back in the anti-trust laws is a separate issue from free speech, although free speech is one of the many things that would benefit from such re-dentition.

[Selwynn]

26. I admire you DuctapeFatwa

That was well said, and even handed.

[DuctapeFatwa]

30. Thanks! I admire you too!

You were really good on that East-West thread the other day
:toast:

[FlemingsGhost]

28. This is why Democrats lose.

Now mind you, I agree with you--in principle. And I applaud your moral disipline and even-handed nature.

But our opponent plays by a completely set of rules when they see weakness, and have no problem destroying their perceived "enemies." They have a killer instinct that the "nice guys" on the other side of the aisle are, for the most part, uncomfortable embracing.

By the way, everyone is a hypocrite in some way, shape or form.

"Get over it."

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. I think we probably have different definitions of "weakness"

and of winning :))

[FlemingsGhost]

32. A little story to illustrate my point.

The board game "Monopoly" was huge in my family. My brother and I would spend countless hours playing, and 99% per cent of the time, he would thump me soundly. (He's now a stock broker... go figure.)

Anyway, one night I got him on the ropes. He was broke and was fast approaching my highly developed properties. I started to feel sorry for him, (and really wanted to prolong the agony for all the times he had done it to me,) so I gave him $500, figuring it was only a metter of time anyway. I was loaded. I controlled the board. The game was mine.

Guess what? I lost. In two hours time, he successfully parlayed that $500 into an empire and completed a stunning reversal of fortune. When it came time for my demise, he didn't blink. And he shouldn't have. I deserved to lose. I'll never forget that game. (A tiny part of me thinks I ultimately studied business because of that humiliating experience.)

What's my point? The GOP political machine sees everything as a business deal. Right or wrong, they remove the emotional hedging and the ponderance of morality that we are so fond of, and focus on winning the game.

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. If you feel that the GOP more accurately reflects your morals

That is your prerogative, but why would you want the Democrats to have those same values?

[FlemingsGhost]

43. LOL... touché

Like I said before, I sincerely hope "Rush Limbaugh" gets well, and allows himself to discover, and learn to love plain old "Jeff Christie."

I pity him, really. I know addiction is a miserable disease. So far, however, Rush has shown absolutely no remorse and has given every indication that he will continue the lie, in some deluded form, until he hits rock bottom (Just like every junkie in denial.) The moment he comes clean, and accepts responsibility for all the harm he has caused, he will recieve compassion. Until then, I will make sure he and his ilk are reminded of the lies and hypocrisy that he so easily embraced and used for their twisted, vicious agenda. Ironically, included in that laundry list is a holier-than-thou attitude regarding drug abuse.

If that makes my morality suspect, so be it. I'll wring my hands and rack myself with guilt when the game is won, and sanity is returned to this nation.

[Rebellious Republican]

31. As a veteran, I agree, thats what I fought for, the only difference

between Rush and the Dixie Chicks are their points of veiw, and the fact that the BFEE controls the media. So they promote Rush and censor the Chicks. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about that at this point. That was a damn good statement DuctapeFatwa, I actually had this conversation with a co-worker about a month ago. He is young and right bent, he knows I am (older)left bent and served in Beruit. He thought he would score points on the patriotic side and slammed the chicks for their comments. I layed into him, (readers digest version) I told him I fought for their right to say what ever they want, when ever they want, where ever they want. I also told him that if my neighbor wanted to hang out a communist flag he has that right as well, even though I might not appreciate it! If Rush Limpballs can publicly belittle Dems he also has that right. There was whole lot more, but that was the meat of the story. I also told him to go and take a look at those medals and ribbons that I have hanging on my office wall and to give some of what I said a thought. I am slowly turning his young impressionable ass to the left. I have to do it by practicing what I preach.

:kick:

[QERTY]

33. What if Microsoft decided to use it's start page. .

for right-wing propaganda? Would you have a problem with that? Yeah, open-source, hacks, whatever. I'm talking about an almost complete monopoly controlling the messages that the vast majority of people hear. That's what happened to the Dixie Chicks with Clear Channel. What would you do if Fox bought CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC, then loudly advocated for Bush and NPR/PBS de-funding? Would that be OK? I know this is a tangential and exhausted issue, but we need to fight the monopolization of media. It's not okay.

[DuctapeFatwa]

36. I am against the monopolization of media. To answer your 1st point

if Microsoft did that, I would think it sucked.

But it is Microsoft's page, and if they have too large a share of the market, that is because the state has failed in its responsibility to protect competition, which is important to do in order to balance a free market with the well-being of the people. It is a separate issue from their right to put whatever bilge they want to put on their page.

It is a bad idea to place any "ism" over the interests of the people, which is what we have seen happen in North Korea, in China, and in the US.

The outsourcing of jobs, the decline in wages, and the even larger decline in earning power and widening gap between rich and poor, the phasing out of the middle class along with retail stores that are not Wal-Mart - all are the natural consequences of a free market - "free" in the sense of licensing unchecked greed of the few at the expense of the many.

I don't think it is likely that Rush, even though he is listened to by many people, actually changes a lot of minds. People listen to him either because they agree with him, and he confirms and validates their ignorance, or because they love to hate him.

There are millions and millions of people who share Rush's opinions, although they have never heard him and held those opinions before he was on the air.

Right-wing shock jocks are not Martin Luther Kings or Gandhijis or Mohammeds or Jesuses or even Harriet Beecher Stowes or John Lennons.

They do not inspire and change and hearts and illuminate minds.

They are just annoying.

[haymaker]

38. Wrong.

The Dixie Chicks work for the Dixie Chicks. Ruse was working for ESPN, which could not afford to leave his stupid ass on the TV. They elected not to fight for the racist pig. So he's gone.

The heat that was laid on Rush doesn't bother me a bit. The heat that was laid on the Dixie Chicks was OK too, except it was not quite the same thing. Nothing the Chick said was anything more than her opinion of a stupid Resident. Rush said something wholly different and collosally stupid.

Rush got what he deserved. It was ESPN's call and they made it. They cannot say they weren't warned, because I warned them myself. Nobody is saying he doesn't have the right to say whatever idiotic bullshit he wants to say. They are just saying that they won't watch him say it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

45. The Chicks apparently thought they couldn't afford not to apologize

Now I don't have any way of knowing that for sure, whether it was their decision or that of the record company, but the point is that whatever decisions a commercial outfit makes about your free speech vis a vis their profit line is a different issue from your right to speak.

In other words, Rush has the right to state his view. That is, in fact, what ESPN was paying him to do.

They have the option to decide that they no longer require his services either because they find his view displeasing or because they simply decide to run "Heidi" cartoons in that time slot.

Whether either is a good decision, or whether Rush deserves to be fired, or deserves a raise, is a subjective judgment that you make based on your opinion.

The same can be said of the Chicks.

Whatever your opinion, or mine, is of either Rush or Chicks has nothing to do with A) their right to free speech, or B) the opinion of whoever signs their paychecks.

My personal opinion is that the Chicks should have stood their ground, and watched the "boycott" run them up the charts, which it did, and I don't think it had anything to do with their apology.

Either they, or their record company, had a different view than mine.

My personal opinion is that ESPN made the right call on Rush. Ball throwing activity is big business, it sells a lot of ads, and advertisers don't like scandal.

BUT - again, all that is just my opinion - the Chicks record company and ESPN both have the right to make their own decisions regardless of what I think, and the Chicks, and Rush, and you, and even Britney Spears have the right to say what they think!

[Terwilliger]

40. OHHHHHHHHHH no

It would be equally hypocritical of me to roll my eyes at the "war on drugs" and complain about the waste of law enforcement resources on such "crimes" and then turn around and pounce gleefully on the notion that Rush pops pills.

Any fuckhead who goes on the radio and attacks drugs like Rush does can GO TO JAIL like the rest of them!!!

[DuctapeFatwa]

46. My point is, I don't think the rest of them should go to jail

So I can hardly think that he should ;)

[mitchum]

41. I'm only sorry that the sonofabitch didn't overdose and die

[Octafish]

47. What about the "Fairness Doctrine?"

I agree with you about the right to express oneself, but the fact of the matter is it's a different game when using the nation's — the People's — airwaves. They, no matter what Pruneface Reagan, Poppy Bush, or Colin Jr say — are public property.

As in any other public resource, they are to be used to generate information for the public good. That's why the FCC came up with the fairness doctrine, where all sides, if possible, the opposing side, at least, gets an equal shot to state an opinion.

The blue-pill popping pimple-ass Flush has spouted his Reich Wing agenda for several hours a day, non-stop for near, what?, 15 years — coast-to-coast. That's an entire generation of white, 'Murkkkin men he's "educated" or "indoctrinated." Flushbo's taught these same people to "think" that "Liberal" is a dirty word for a communist, pot-smokers are evil and degenerate, women belong in the kitchen and on the bottom in the bedroom, and a whole bunch of other sick and twisted ideas these "morans" believe to be true.

Nowhere has the "Liberal" perspective been presented in any way close to that which Rush, Dr. Laura, Hannity and the rest of the heartless bed-wetters are free to hate — and make a big buck while they stroke the corporate ownership — up and down the radio dial.

Remember, Gingrich made Rush an "Unofficial Congressman" after they won the House in 1994. News the turd thanked Flushbo. Why else would Bush come to the Turd's defense?

[DuctapeFatwa]

48. It's a different argument from freedom of speech on a commercial outlet

See replies to a couple of other posts - I don't disagree with you about the Fairness Doctrine - I'd like to see it applied more rigorously, I agree that the airwaves belong to the people, and we need to do a better job of balancing that with the freedom to purchase a radio station.

But I am viewing Rush on ESPN as the same as Rush on a streetcorner; ESPN may be a bully pulpit, but no one has to listen to him, and his bile is a better argument for his opposition so I don't worry about him influencing tender young ball-throwing obsessed minds.