Too Many Men on the Field

by Don Boudreaux on October 20, 2009

in Current Affairs, Nanny State, Sports

Here’s a letter that I sent today to the Los Angeles Times:

Pleased that the National Football League snubbed Rush Limbaugh, Bill Stamps criticizes the radio host for believing that “most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings” (Letters, Oct. 20).

Being a private organization, N.F.L. policies are none of my business.  It can snub or embrace whoever it wishes.  But I’m curious why Mr. Stamps thinks that Limbaugh’s belief in personal responsibility is out of bounds.

If the typical person isn’t responsible for his or her life, who is?  Sure, luck (both good and bad) is common, as is injustice.  But is fate so overwhelming that we are its helpless pawns?  Is it really so offensive for Limbaugh to advocate public policies that leave to each of us more responsibility for our lives?

If you doubt the answers to these questions, ask yourself if you think that my college students would study hard and perform well on exams if, on the first day of class, I announce that they will all get “A”s because, really, personal responsibility is a myth.  Anyone who answers that my students’ efforts and classroom achievements would fall ought to wonder at Mr. Stamps’s disapproval of Limbaugh’s emphasis on personal responsibility.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

237 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 237 comments }

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Where do you get that Stamps disapproves of Limbaugh’s emphasis on personal responsibility? The letter was clearly saying that Limbaugh harps on it so much that he shouldn’t complain when things happen to him – things like losing a bid for a football team. He should take responsibility for the lost bid.Nowhere does Stamps say that that’s bad. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone that it’s other statements of Limbaugh’s that are controversial, not his thoughts on self-responsibility. Stamps’s only point is that of all people Limbaugh shouldn’t be belly-aching about the loss or expecting any sympathy.

Mike October 20, 2009 at 7:43 pm

“However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. [...] He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.”

He clearly called self-responsibility “cold and harsh.”

Mike October 20, 2009 at 7:43 pm

“However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. [...] He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.”

He clearly called self-responsibility “cold and harsh.”

Mike October 20, 2009 at 7:43 pm

“However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. [...] He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.”

He clearly called self-responsibility “cold and harsh.”

Mike October 20, 2009 at 7:43 pm

“However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. [...] He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.”

He clearly called self-responsibility “cold and harsh.”

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Well, he called a world governed by self-responsibility cold and harsh. Isn’t it? Isn’t that kind of the point? Profit and loss.

Anyway – I just hope none of us are under the mistaken impression that Rush Limbaugh’s sense of personal responsibility is what makes him so controversial, or gets him his ratings for that matter.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 8:24 pm

I just hope none of us are under the mistaken impression that Rush Limbaugh’s sense of personal responsibility is what makes him so controversial, or gets him his ratings for that matter.

For a guy who claims to not be a mind reader, you sure seem quick to claim some special knowledge about what does and doesn’t attract listeners of the Rush Limbaugh show.

The NFL snubbed Limbaugh because of his political views. Of course, they associated being a conservative with racism. The NFL isn’t exactly filled with MENSA members. Limbaugh objected to this charge. I don’t know what mental gymnastics you went through to make the spurious charge of racism Limbaugh’s fault. But, ON HIS SHOW, Limbaugh said that he has lost nothing because of the snub. Admittedly, I only caught one show since the snub, but during that show he was “dealing with it” just fine.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 8:24 pm

I just hope none of us are under the mistaken impression that Rush Limbaugh’s sense of personal responsibility is what makes him so controversial, or gets him his ratings for that matter.

For a guy who claims to not be a mind reader, you sure seem quick to claim some special knowledge about what does and doesn’t attract listeners of the Rush Limbaugh show.

The NFL snubbed Limbaugh because of his political views. Of course, they associated being a conservative with racism. The NFL isn’t exactly filled with MENSA members. Limbaugh objected to this charge. I don’t know what mental gymnastics you went through to make the spurious charge of racism Limbaugh’s fault. But, ON HIS SHOW, Limbaugh said that he has lost nothing because of the snub. Admittedly, I only caught one show since the snub, but during that show he was “dealing with it” just fine.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 8:24 pm

I just hope none of us are under the mistaken impression that Rush Limbaugh’s sense of personal responsibility is what makes him so controversial, or gets him his ratings for that matter.

For a guy who claims to not be a mind reader, you sure seem quick to claim some special knowledge about what does and doesn’t attract listeners of the Rush Limbaugh show.

The NFL snubbed Limbaugh because of his political views. Of course, they associated being a conservative with racism. The NFL isn’t exactly filled with MENSA members. Limbaugh objected to this charge. I don’t know what mental gymnastics you went through to make the spurious charge of racism Limbaugh’s fault. But, ON HIS SHOW, Limbaugh said that he has lost nothing because of the snub. Admittedly, I only caught one show since the snub, but during that show he was “dealing with it” just fine.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm

RE: “For a guy who claims to not be a mind reader, you sure seem quick to claim some special knowledge about what does and doesn’t attract listeners of the Rush Limbaugh show.”

Not sure what mind reading has to do with it. People are traditionally pretty open about what they don’t like about Rush Limbaugh. No special insight necessary on my part.

RE: “The NFL snubbed Limbaugh because of his political views. Of course, they associated being a conservative with racism.”

Now that’s the kind of statement that requires some mind reading. I imagine this weighed stronger on their minds (being the NFL): “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it”, and I’d welcome your attempt to explain how that has anything to do with his conservatism.

RE: “during that show he was “dealing with it” just fine.”

I’m expecting he is – I don’t think Bill Stamp has anything to worry about in that regard. I think Stamp was just blowing off steam.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm

RE: “For a guy who claims to not be a mind reader, you sure seem quick to claim some special knowledge about what does and doesn’t attract listeners of the Rush Limbaugh show.”

Not sure what mind reading has to do with it. People are traditionally pretty open about what they don’t like about Rush Limbaugh. No special insight necessary on my part.

RE: “The NFL snubbed Limbaugh because of his political views. Of course, they associated being a conservative with racism.”

Now that’s the kind of statement that requires some mind reading. I imagine this weighed stronger on their minds (being the NFL): “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it”, and I’d welcome your attempt to explain how that has anything to do with his conservatism.

RE: “during that show he was “dealing with it” just fine.”

I’m expecting he is – I don’t think Bill Stamp has anything to worry about in that regard. I think Stamp was just blowing off steam.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm

RE: “For a guy who claims to not be a mind reader, you sure seem quick to claim some special knowledge about what does and doesn’t attract listeners of the Rush Limbaugh show.”

Not sure what mind reading has to do with it. People are traditionally pretty open about what they don’t like about Rush Limbaugh. No special insight necessary on my part.

RE: “The NFL snubbed Limbaugh because of his political views. Of course, they associated being a conservative with racism.”

Now that’s the kind of statement that requires some mind reading. I imagine this weighed stronger on their minds (being the NFL): “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it”, and I’d welcome your attempt to explain how that has anything to do with his conservatism.

RE: “during that show he was “dealing with it” just fine.”

I’m expecting he is – I don’t think Bill Stamp has anything to worry about in that regard. I think Stamp was just blowing off steam.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm

RE: “For a guy who claims to not be a mind reader, you sure seem quick to claim some special knowledge about what does and doesn’t attract listeners of the Rush Limbaugh show.”

Not sure what mind reading has to do with it. People are traditionally pretty open about what they don’t like about Rush Limbaugh. No special insight necessary on my part.

RE: “The NFL snubbed Limbaugh because of his political views. Of course, they associated being a conservative with racism.”

Now that’s the kind of statement that requires some mind reading. I imagine this weighed stronger on their minds (being the NFL): “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it”, and I’d welcome your attempt to explain how that has anything to do with his conservatism.

RE: “during that show he was “dealing with it” just fine.”

I’m expecting he is – I don’t think Bill Stamp has anything to worry about in that regard. I think Stamp was just blowing off steam.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:33 pm

- Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

- The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

Look, I listen to Rush on occasion. He’s generally harmless and fun to listen to because he’s so cooky. But I don’t blame the NFL at all for not wanting to associate with him. Just try and explain to me what the above quotes have to do with his conservatism or his love of personal responsibility.

I don’t want to demonize Limbaugh – he is what he is. But let’s cut the crap about why people don’t like him. His conservatism has nothing to do with it. They don’t like him because he’s a jerk.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:33 pm

- Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

- The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

Look, I listen to Rush on occasion. He’s generally harmless and fun to listen to because he’s so cooky. But I don’t blame the NFL at all for not wanting to associate with him. Just try and explain to me what the above quotes have to do with his conservatism or his love of personal responsibility.

I don’t want to demonize Limbaugh – he is what he is. But let’s cut the crap about why people don’t like him. His conservatism has nothing to do with it. They don’t like him because he’s a jerk.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:33 pm

- Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

- The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

Look, I listen to Rush on occasion. He’s generally harmless and fun to listen to because he’s so cooky. But I don’t blame the NFL at all for not wanting to associate with him. Just try and explain to me what the above quotes have to do with his conservatism or his love of personal responsibility.

I don’t want to demonize Limbaugh – he is what he is. But let’s cut the crap about why people don’t like him. His conservatism has nothing to do with it. They don’t like him because he’s a jerk.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:33 pm

- Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

- The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

Look, I listen to Rush on occasion. He’s generally harmless and fun to listen to because he’s so cooky. But I don’t blame the NFL at all for not wanting to associate with him. Just try and explain to me what the above quotes have to do with his conservatism or his love of personal responsibility.

I don’t want to demonize Limbaugh – he is what he is. But let’s cut the crap about why people don’t like him. His conservatism has nothing to do with it. They don’t like him because he’s a jerk.

TeeJaw October 20, 2009 at 8:39 pm

The NFL didn’t associate being conservative with racism. They reacted to a bunch of lies told by vicious race mongers.

TeeJaw October 20, 2009 at 8:39 pm

The NFL didn’t associate being conservative with racism. They reacted to a bunch of lies told by vicious race mongers.

TeeJaw October 20, 2009 at 8:39 pm

The NFL didn’t associate being conservative with racism. They reacted to a bunch of lies told by vicious race mongers.

TeeJaw October 20, 2009 at 8:39 pm

The NFL didn’t associate being conservative with racism. They reacted to a bunch of lies told by vicious race mongers.

Mike M. October 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Maybe I’m reading too much into this whole thing, but it seems to me that a lot of this is still backlash from the Limbaugh / McNabb incident back in 2003. I’m sure there are a lot of players that think Rush is a racist and from what very little I’ve read on the subject, the backlash against Rush as an owner started with the player’s union.

I don’t think this has as much to do with his political views as it does the perception that he’s a bigot.

Mike M. October 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Maybe I’m reading too much into this whole thing, but it seems to me that a lot of this is still backlash from the Limbaugh / McNabb incident back in 2003. I’m sure there are a lot of players that think Rush is a racist and from what very little I’ve read on the subject, the backlash against Rush as an owner started with the player’s union.

I don’t think this has as much to do with his political views as it does the perception that he’s a bigot.

Mike M. October 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Maybe I’m reading too much into this whole thing, but it seems to me that a lot of this is still backlash from the Limbaugh / McNabb incident back in 2003. I’m sure there are a lot of players that think Rush is a racist and from what very little I’ve read on the subject, the backlash against Rush as an owner started with the player’s union.

I don’t think this has as much to do with his political views as it does the perception that he’s a bigot.

Mike M. October 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Maybe I’m reading too much into this whole thing, but it seems to me that a lot of this is still backlash from the Limbaugh / McNabb incident back in 2003. I’m sure there are a lot of players that think Rush is a racist and from what very little I’ve read on the subject, the backlash against Rush as an owner started with the player’s union.

I don’t think this has as much to do with his political views as it does the perception that he’s a bigot.

Justin P October 22, 2009 at 3:15 am

Actually, I read somewhere that his rating went up! Just like when Obama was going after him, his ratings went up.
Now Obama is going after Fox and guess what…there ratings keep going up!
About the only group that gets screwed is the public, like the Vegas economy after Obama went on scolding people for taking Vegas trips. I just got back, and a lot of people are still pissed about that.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 8:24 pm

I just hope none of us are under the mistaken impression that Rush Limbaugh’s sense of personal responsibility is what makes him so controversial, or gets him his ratings for that matter.

For a guy who claims to not be a mind reader, you sure seem quick to claim some special knowledge about what does and doesn’t attract listeners of the Rush Limbaugh show.

The NFL snubbed Limbaugh because of his political views. Of course, they associated being a conservative with racism. The NFL isn’t exactly filled with MENSA members. Limbaugh objected to this charge. I don’t know what mental gymnastics you went through to make the spurious charge of racism Limbaugh’s fault. But, ON HIS SHOW, Limbaugh said that he has lost nothing because of the snub. Admittedly, I only caught one show since the snub, but during that show he was “dealing with it” just fine.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Well, he called a world governed by self-responsibility cold and harsh. Isn’t it? Isn’t that kind of the point? Profit and loss.

Anyway – I just hope none of us are under the mistaken impression that Rush Limbaugh’s sense of personal responsibility is what makes him so controversial, or gets him his ratings for that matter.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Well, he called a world governed by self-responsibility cold and harsh. Isn’t it? Isn’t that kind of the point? Profit and loss.

Anyway – I just hope none of us are under the mistaken impression that Rush Limbaugh’s sense of personal responsibility is what makes him so controversial, or gets him his ratings for that matter.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Well, he called a world governed by self-responsibility cold and harsh. Isn’t it? Isn’t that kind of the point? Profit and loss.

Anyway – I just hope none of us are under the mistaken impression that Rush Limbaugh’s sense of personal responsibility is what makes him so controversial, or gets him his ratings for that matter.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Daniel: I just re-read Stamps’s letter. I’m baffled that you don’t see that he is critical of Limbaugh’s endorsement of personal responsibility — that you don’t see that Stamps suggests that people in fact aren’t really very responsible for their lots in life.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Daniel: I just re-read Stamps’s letter. I’m baffled that you don’t see that he is critical of Limbaugh’s endorsement of personal responsibility — that you don’t see that Stamps suggests that people in fact aren’t really very responsible for their lots in life.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm

I don’t know about “aren’t really very responsible” – I can’t read his mind. I imagine he has a somewhat different perspective on it from Limbaugh.But are you serious? The message of the letter is “Limbaugh’s own message is to accept it and deal with it – so deal with it Limbaugh”. It was sarcastic, but it wasn’t a screed against self-responsibility. It was a message to Limbaugh to stop complaining.Oh well – no use. It seems like you guys see the rejection of personal responsibility and freedom everywhere you look. I really think you’re reading too much into what was a knock on Limbaugh, not a knock on responsibility.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm

I don’t know about “aren’t really very responsible” – I can’t read his mind. I imagine he has a somewhat different perspective on it from Limbaugh.But are you serious? The message of the letter is “Limbaugh’s own message is to accept it and deal with it – so deal with it Limbaugh”. It was sarcastic, but it wasn’t a screed against self-responsibility. It was a message to Limbaugh to stop complaining.Oh well – no use. It seems like you guys see the rejection of personal responsibility and freedom everywhere you look. I really think you’re reading too much into what was a knock on Limbaugh, not a knock on responsibility.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:54 pm

I can’t speak for anyone else, of course, but Mr. Stamps’s letter clearly seems to me to indicate his belief that people in fact are NOT very responsible in any big way for what happens to them — that the typical person cannot really exercise much control over his or her fate — and that Rush Limbaugh deserves censure for insisting that people ARE chiefly responsible for their own lives.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:54 pm

I can’t speak for anyone else, of course, but Mr. Stamps’s letter clearly seems to me to indicate his belief that people in fact are NOT very responsible in any big way for what happens to them — that the typical person cannot really exercise much control over his or her fate — and that Rush Limbaugh deserves censure for insisting that people ARE chiefly responsible for their own lives.

sandre October 20, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Totally agree with you Don.

However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world >b>he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. Equality and fairness for all people are not a major concern to him. He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.

So I believe that Limbaugh, unfortunately, is sleeping in a bed he created.

According to Stamps, what kind of bed and world has Limbaugh created? I mean a trap that he has set for himself? Answer is very clear to Mr. Stamps – “an ardent belief in unconditional self-responsibility”.

sandre October 20, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Totally agree with you Don.

However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world >b>he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. Equality and fairness for all people are not a major concern to him. He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.

So I believe that Limbaugh, unfortunately, is sleeping in a bed he created.

According to Stamps, what kind of bed and world has Limbaugh created? I mean a trap that he has set for himself? Answer is very clear to Mr. Stamps – “an ardent belief in unconditional self-responsibility”.

sandre October 20, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Totally agree with you Don.

However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world >b>he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. Equality and fairness for all people are not a major concern to him. He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.

So I believe that Limbaugh, unfortunately, is sleeping in a bed he created.

According to Stamps, what kind of bed and world has Limbaugh created? I mean a trap that he has set for himself? Answer is very clear to Mr. Stamps – “an ardent belief in unconditional self-responsibility”.

sandre October 20, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Totally agree with you Don.

However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world >b>he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. Equality and fairness for all people are not a major concern to him. He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.

So I believe that Limbaugh, unfortunately, is sleeping in a bed he created.

According to Stamps, what kind of bed and world has Limbaugh created? I mean a trap that he has set for himself? Answer is very clear to Mr. Stamps – “an ardent belief in unconditional self-responsibility”.

Justin P October 22, 2009 at 3:21 am

I agree with you Don. The letter is fairly obvious.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:54 pm

I can’t speak for anyone else, of course, but Mr. Stamps’s letter clearly seems to me to indicate his belief that people in fact are NOT very responsible in any big way for what happens to them — that the typical person cannot really exercise much control over his or her fate — and that Rush Limbaugh deserves censure for insisting that people ARE chiefly responsible for their own lives.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:54 pm

I can’t speak for anyone else, of course, but Mr. Stamps’s letter clearly seems to me to indicate his belief that people in fact are NOT very responsible in any big way for what happens to them — that the typical person cannot really exercise much control over his or her fate — and that Rush Limbaugh deserves censure for insisting that people ARE chiefly responsible for their own lives.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm

I don’t know about “aren’t really very responsible” – I can’t read his mind. I imagine he has a somewhat different perspective on it from Limbaugh.But are you serious? The message of the letter is “Limbaugh’s own message is to accept it and deal with it – so deal with it Limbaugh”. It was sarcastic, but it wasn’t a screed against self-responsibility. It was a message to Limbaugh to stop complaining.Oh well – no use. It seems like you guys see the rejection of personal responsibility and freedom everywhere you look. I really think you’re reading too much into what was a knock on Limbaugh, not a knock on responsibility.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm

I don’t know about “aren’t really very responsible” – I can’t read his mind. I imagine he has a somewhat different perspective on it from Limbaugh.But are you serious? The message of the letter is “Limbaugh’s own message is to accept it and deal with it – so deal with it Limbaugh”. It was sarcastic, but it wasn’t a screed against self-responsibility. It was a message to Limbaugh to stop complaining.Oh well – no use. It seems like you guys see the rejection of personal responsibility and freedom everywhere you look. I really think you’re reading too much into what was a knock on Limbaugh, not a knock on responsibility.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:28 am

These 2 paragraphs are just awesome in their total utter nonsensical confusion. I love this comment muirgeo, because it represents basically everything wrong with your “philosophy,” such as it is.It would take days, possibly longer, to unravel the pseudologic contained in these 4 statements (actually 2 statements, a fragment, and a mispunctuated interrogatory). Truly astonishing. And well done!I won’t waste my time trying to correct you, as I have far better things to do (re-tar my roof, figure pi to the 86th decimal, etc.).

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:28 am

These 2 paragraphs are just awesome in their total utter nonsensical confusion. I love this comment muirgeo, because it represents basically everything wrong with your “philosophy,” such as it is.It would take days, possibly longer, to unravel the pseudologic contained in these 4 statements (actually 2 statements, a fragment, and a mispunctuated interrogatory). Truly astonishing. And well done!I won’t waste my time trying to correct you, as I have far better things to do (re-tar my roof, figure pi to the 86th decimal, etc.).

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 7:25 am

I’m willing to bet you’ve never even thought in any depth what the idea of personal responsibility means. Likely yours is a superficial position all based on accumulated wealth and nothing to do with value or potential. Thus Paris Hilton is a responsible productive person while a kid gang banger shot in the head was obviously a defective irresponsible person…. because the market knows everything and the Invisible Hand God is all knowing and just.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 7:25 am

I’m willing to bet you’ve never even thought in any depth what the idea of personal responsibility means. Likely yours is a superficial position all based on accumulated wealth and nothing to do with value or potential. Thus Paris Hilton is a responsible productive person while a kid gang banger shot in the head was obviously a defective irresponsible person…. because the market knows everything and the Invisible Hand God is all knowing and just.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 7:25 am

I’m willing to bet you’ve never even thought in any depth what the idea of personal responsibility means. Likely yours is a superficial position all based on accumulated wealth and nothing to do with value or potential. Thus Paris Hilton is a responsible productive person while a kid gang banger shot in the head was obviously a defective irresponsible person…. because the market knows everything and the Invisible Hand God is all knowing and just.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 7:25 am

I’m willing to bet you’ve never even thought in any depth what the idea of personal responsibility means. Likely yours is a superficial position all based on accumulated wealth and nothing to do with value or potential. Thus Paris Hilton is a responsible productive person while a kid gang banger shot in the head was obviously a defective irresponsible person…. because the market knows everything and the Invisible Hand God is all knowing and just.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:28 am

These 2 paragraphs are just awesome in their total utter nonsensical confusion. I love this comment muirgeo, because it represents basically everything wrong with your “philosophy,” such as it is.It would take days, possibly longer, to unravel the pseudologic contained in these 4 statements (actually 2 statements, a fragment, and a mispunctuated interrogatory). Truly astonishing. And well done!I won’t waste my time trying to correct you, as I have far better things to do (re-tar my roof, figure pi to the 86th decimal, etc.).

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:28 am

These 2 paragraphs are just awesome in their total utter nonsensical confusion. I love this comment muirgeo, because it represents basically everything wrong with your “philosophy,” such as it is.It would take days, possibly longer, to unravel the pseudologic contained in these 4 statements (actually 2 statements, a fragment, and a mispunctuated interrogatory). Truly astonishing. And well done!I won’t waste my time trying to correct you, as I have far better things to do (re-tar my roof, figure pi to the 86th decimal, etc.).

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 12:58 am

muirpidity #44.
all muirpidities are stands-along idiocy. They need no context to be seen as the stupidity they are.

Or # 44 (10/20/09)
muirgeo 4 hours ago in reply to DonBoudreaux

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 12:58 am

muirpidity #44.
all muirpidities are stands-along idiocy. They need no context to be seen as the stupidity they are.

Or # 44 (10/20/09)
muirgeo 4 hours ago in reply to DonBoudreaux

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 12:58 am

muirpidity #44.
all muirpidities are stands-along idiocy. They need no context to be seen as the stupidity they are.

Or # 44 (10/20/09)
muirgeo 4 hours ago in reply to DonBoudreaux

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 12:58 am

muirpidity #44.
all muirpidities are stands-along idiocy. They need no context to be seen as the stupidity they are.

Or # 44 (10/20/09)
muirgeo 4 hours ago in reply to DonBoudreaux

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

Justin P October 22, 2009 at 3:22 am

Holy Crap, what a load of junk!

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Don,

If you believe that some sort of providence is the explaination for a inner city child born to a drug addicted mother and also for the child born to a wealthy CEO then you really are baffled on the issue of personal responsibilty.

Do you want to tell me a babies choice of mother and country to be born in is an act of irresponsibilty that deserves its end results. Your society will certainly set the matter in such a fashion. A small super wealthy “responsible” elitist class and all the poor begger “irresponsible” class.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Daniel: I just re-read Stamps’s letter. I’m baffled that you don’t see that he is critical of Limbaugh’s endorsement of personal responsibility — that you don’t see that Stamps suggests that people in fact aren’t really very responsible for their lots in life.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Daniel: I just re-read Stamps’s letter. I’m baffled that you don’t see that he is critical of Limbaugh’s endorsement of personal responsibility — that you don’t see that Stamps suggests that people in fact aren’t really very responsible for their lots in life.

TeeJaw October 20, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Rush would agree that he responsible for his own life and his success or failure. But only the liars are responsible for making up vicious lies about Rush. You and Stamp are apparently willing to hold Rush responsible for what is done by others over whom he has no control. I doubt neither you nor Stamp would like that standard applied to yourselves or anyone you care about, so I conclude neither of you are sincere and that you both take the position you do solely out of dislike for Rush.

TeeJaw October 20, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Rush would agree that he responsible for his own life and his success or failure. But only the liars are responsible for making up vicious lies about Rush. You and Stamp are apparently willing to hold Rush responsible for what is done by others over whom he has no control. I doubt neither you nor Stamp would like that standard applied to yourselves or anyone you care about, so I conclude neither of you are sincere and that you both take the position you do solely out of dislike for Rush.

TeeJaw October 20, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Rush would agree that he responsible for his own life and his success or failure. But only the liars are responsible for making up vicious lies about Rush. You and Stamp are apparently willing to hold Rush responsible for what is done by others over whom he has no control. I doubt neither you nor Stamp would like that standard applied to yourselves or anyone you care about, so I conclude neither of you are sincere and that you both take the position you do solely out of dislike for Rush.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm

RE: “so I conclude neither of you are sincere…”

Just as long as you realize your conclusions are based on the idea that liars are responsible for Rush’s reputation, and not Rush himself.

There have been a few fabricated quotes attributed to him, no doubt. Those should be exposed. But come on – he supplies more than enough himself. Lots of people don’t like him. I guarantee you he’s made peace with that – he isn’t suffering from the controversy.

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 2:10 pm

And lots of people do like him. Doesn’t he have the largest audience of any talk show?

It’s interesting that anyone who thinks Obama is a socialist or fascist doesn’t understand him or they’re racist, yet Rush is responsible for his own reputation. Bush – responsible for his own reputation. Obama engaging in Bush policies to the power of ten? Misunderstood genius and saviour. Just a curious observation.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 2:17 pm

RE: “And lots of people do like him. Doesn’t he have the largest audience of any talk show?”

Definitely – and yes, that is my understanding of his audience.

I’m not sure I understand your other observation. I think Bush, Rush, and Obama’s reputations are all due to a mixture of lies and fabrication, as well as their actual position. Wouldn’t you agree?

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm

RE: “so I conclude neither of you are sincere…”

Just as long as you realize your conclusions are based on the idea that liars are responsible for Rush’s reputation, and not Rush himself.

There have been a few fabricated quotes attributed to him, no doubt. Those should be exposed. But come on – he supplies more than enough himself. Lots of people don’t like him. I guarantee you he’s made peace with that – he isn’t suffering from the controversy.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm

RE: “so I conclude neither of you are sincere…”

Just as long as you realize your conclusions are based on the idea that liars are responsible for Rush’s reputation, and not Rush himself.

There have been a few fabricated quotes attributed to him, no doubt. Those should be exposed. But come on – he supplies more than enough himself. Lots of people don’t like him. I guarantee you he’s made peace with that – he isn’t suffering from the controversy.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm

RE: “so I conclude neither of you are sincere…”

Just as long as you realize your conclusions are based on the idea that liars are responsible for Rush’s reputation, and not Rush himself.

There have been a few fabricated quotes attributed to him, no doubt. Those should be exposed. But come on – he supplies more than enough himself. Lots of people don’t like him. I guarantee you he’s made peace with that – he isn’t suffering from the controversy.

TeeJaw October 20, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Rush would agree that he responsible for his own life and his success or failure. But only the liars are responsible for making up vicious lies about Rush. You and Stamp are apparently willing to hold Rush responsible for what is done by others over whom he has no control. I doubt neither you nor Stamp would like that standard applied to yourselves or anyone you care about, so I conclude neither of you are sincere and that you both take the position you do solely out of dislike for Rush.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Where do you get that Stamps disapproves of Limbaugh’s emphasis on personal responsibility? The letter was clearly saying that Limbaugh harps on it so much that he shouldn’t complain when things happen to him – things like losing a bid for a football team. He should take responsibility for the lost bid.Nowhere does Stamps say that that’s bad. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone that it’s other statements of Limbaugh’s that are controversial, not his thoughts on self-responsibility. Stamps’s only point is that of all people Limbaugh shouldn’t be belly-aching about the loss or expecting any sympathy.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Where do you get that Stamps disapproves of Limbaugh’s emphasis on personal responsibility? The letter was clearly saying that Limbaugh harps on it so much that he shouldn’t complain when things happen to him – things like losing a bid for a football team. He should take responsibility for the lost bid.Nowhere does Stamps say that that’s bad. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone that it’s other statements of Limbaugh’s that are controversial, not his thoughts on self-responsibility. Stamps’s only point is that of all people Limbaugh shouldn’t be belly-aching about the loss or expecting any sympathy.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Where do you get that Stamps disapproves of Limbaugh’s emphasis on personal responsibility? The letter was clearly saying that Limbaugh harps on it so much that he shouldn’t complain when things happen to him – things like losing a bid for a football team. He should take responsibility for the lost bid.Nowhere does Stamps say that that’s bad. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone that it’s other statements of Limbaugh’s that are controversial, not his thoughts on self-responsibility. Stamps’s only point is that of all people Limbaugh shouldn’t be belly-aching about the loss or expecting any sympathy.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Your good students would still study hard regardless… out of the desire to truly improve themselves. Your not so good students looking for easy riches would take advantage of the situation to solely improve their personal standing with out regard to the bigger picture issues.

Now if on the first day of class you said people had to score well on their test but there were no rules and you could cheat, copy answers from others or reference a textbook those same less principled students would cheat and get a good grade. Again they would have learned nothing compared with the principled student who studies and learned his lesson. But the cheaters and greedy lazy students would come out on top.

The rule-less society you would like to foist upon us… the one we basically have… where cheats and greed mongers can and do come out on top is no answer to irresponsible behavior.

The bonuses being paid at Goldman-Sachs and the massive accumulations of wealth to the non-productive finance industry from the productive main street of America is in no proportion to personal responsibility.

We are seeing the cheats, the greed mongers and the lazy make easy fortunes off of short cuts, robbery, and collusion that have nothing to do with adding to the productive society.

Your class and society as well needs rules that reward production over deviancy and short cuts to ill gotten wealth. Promotion of a rule-less society IS promotion of personal irresponsibility.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Your good students would still study hard regardless… out of the desire to truly improve themselves. Your not so good students looking for easy riches would take advantage of the situation to solely improve their personal standing with out regard to the bigger picture issues.

Now if on the first day of class you said people had to score well on their test but there were no rules and you could cheat, copy answers from others or reference a textbook those same less principled students would cheat and get a good grade. Again they would have learned nothing compared with the principled student who studies and learned his lesson. But the cheaters and greedy lazy students would come out on top.

The rule-less society you would like to foist upon us… the one we basically have… where cheats and greed mongers can and do come out on top is no answer to irresponsible behavior.

The bonuses being paid at Goldman-Sachs and the massive accumulations of wealth to the non-productive finance industry from the productive main street of America is in no proportion to personal responsibility.

We are seeing the cheats, the greed mongers and the lazy make easy fortunes off of short cuts, robbery, and collusion that have nothing to do with adding to the productive society.

Your class and society as well needs rules that reward production over deviancy and short cuts to ill gotten wealth. Promotion of a rule-less society IS promotion of personal irresponsibility.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Your good students would still study hard regardless… out of the desire to truly improve themselves. Your not so good students looking for easy riches would take advantage of the situation to solely improve their personal standing with out regard to the bigger picture issues.

Now if on the first day of class you said people had to score well on their test but there were no rules and you could cheat, copy answers from others or reference a textbook those same less principled students would cheat and get a good grade. Again they would have learned nothing compared with the principled student who studies and learned his lesson. But the cheaters and greedy lazy students would come out on top.

The rule-less society you would like to foist upon us… the one we basically have… where cheats and greed mongers can and do come out on top is no answer to irresponsible behavior.

The bonuses being paid at Goldman-Sachs and the massive accumulations of wealth to the non-productive finance industry from the productive main street of America is in no proportion to personal responsibility.

We are seeing the cheats, the greed mongers and the lazy make easy fortunes off of short cuts, robbery, and collusion that have nothing to do with adding to the productive society.

Your class and society as well needs rules that reward production over deviancy and short cuts to ill gotten wealth. Promotion of a rule-less society IS promotion of personal irresponsibility.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:08 pm

They don’t promote a ruleless society – get over that, muirgeo.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:08 pm

They don’t promote a ruleless society – get over that, muirgeo.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:08 pm

They don’t promote a ruleless society – get over that, muirgeo.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:56 am

Daniel,

You explain to me how what they promote doesn’t lead to concentration of wealth and power and ultimately indentured servitude. Please do so.

But in one sense it doesn’t lead to a rule-less society as those with all the money will assume power and make the rules as we now see happening.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:56 am

Daniel,

You explain to me how what they promote doesn’t lead to concentration of wealth and power and ultimately indentured servitude. Please do so.

But in one sense it doesn’t lead to a rule-less society as those with all the money will assume power and make the rules as we now see happening.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 4:54 am

Those with money have been buying Democrats. Your party has controlled Congress for sixty of the last eighty years.

Contrary to your belief, a president isn’t a king. A president can only sign legislation presented to him by Congress.

BTW: Nice attempt to change the subject after DK reminded you that libertarians don’t promote a society without rules. Daniel may well agree with you that libertarianism leads to concentration of wealth… etc. Then again, he might not. He’s not as dumb as you are.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 4:54 am

Those with money have been buying Democrats. Your party has controlled Congress for sixty of the last eighty years.

Contrary to your belief, a president isn’t a king. A president can only sign legislation presented to him by Congress.

BTW: Nice attempt to change the subject after DK reminded you that libertarians don’t promote a society without rules. Daniel may well agree with you that libertarianism leads to concentration of wealth… etc. Then again, he might not. He’s not as dumb as you are.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 4:54 am

Those with money have been buying Democrats. Your party has controlled Congress for sixty of the last eighty years.

Contrary to your belief, a president isn’t a king. A president can only sign legislation presented to him by Congress.

BTW: Nice attempt to change the subject after DK reminded you that libertarians don’t promote a society without rules. Daniel may well agree with you that libertarianism leads to concentration of wealth… etc. Then again, he might not. He’s not as dumb as you are.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 4:54 am

Those with money have been buying Democrats. Your party has controlled Congress for sixty of the last eighty years.

Contrary to your belief, a president isn’t a king. A president can only sign legislation presented to him by Congress.

BTW: Nice attempt to change the subject after DK reminded you that libertarians don’t promote a society without rules. Daniel may well agree with you that libertarianism leads to concentration of wealth… etc. Then again, he might not. He’s not as dumb as you are.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

I suppose it would lead to a concentration of wealth – perhaps even a concentration of power. I speak often about the underlying anti-democratic instinct of much of libertarianism, which I agree (ironically) threatens the decentralization of power (well, it would threaten it if libertarians had any hope of being a real political force).

But I think the rules that libertarians agree on go much farther than even “those with all the money will assume power and make the rules”. They believe in emergent institutions that dictate the way all individuals (not just the rich ones) interact – on the market or elsewhere. And their understanding of property rights provides ample scope for rules that define and defend those rights.

I would agree to you that in focusing so much on state power they ignore the dominance of the wealthy in building emergent institutions sometimes – but I still don’t think you’re exactly right on this.

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 3:56 pm

With money, one can only buy. Without the state intervening in the economy, the only way to make money (outside of crime) is to create something that pleases your fellow man (to quote Walter Williams). That’s very little power compared to a state that literally has the power to enslave you and rob you of your property at the point of a gun. It’s very much more difficult for power and wealth to become concentrated when the wealthy don’t have the power to stop others from also creating things that please their fellow man and become wealthy.

When the state becomes powerful (beyond enforcing Rule of Law and property rights), the wealthy buy the power to rob at the point of a gun. That’s why I think libertarians focus on the power of the state – they don’t make the mistaken assumption that the state, like God, is benevolent and loving.

Anonymous October 23, 2009 at 5:45 am

Excerpts from the notebooks of Lazarus Long:

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?

Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure good government; it simply insures that it will work. But, such governments are rare. Most people want to run things but want no part of the blame. This used to be called, “Backseat-driver Syndrome”

Oh, and just because it’s funny:

A poet who reads his verse in public may have other nasty habits.

R.A.H.

Anonymous October 23, 2009 at 5:45 am

Excerpts from the notebooks of Lazarus Long:

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?

Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure good government; it simply insures that it will work. But, such governments are rare. Most people want to run things but want no part of the blame. This used to be called, “Backseat-driver Syndrome”

Oh, and just because it’s funny:

A poet who reads his verse in public may have other nasty habits.

R.A.H.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

I suppose it would lead to a concentration of wealth – perhaps even a concentration of power. I speak often about the underlying anti-democratic instinct of much of libertarianism, which I agree (ironically) threatens the decentralization of power (well, it would threaten it if libertarians had any hope of being a real political force).

But I think the rules that libertarians agree on go much farther than even “those with all the money will assume power and make the rules”. They believe in emergent institutions that dictate the way all individuals (not just the rich ones) interact – on the market or elsewhere. And their understanding of property rights provides ample scope for rules that define and defend those rights.

I would agree to you that in focusing so much on state power they ignore the dominance of the wealthy in building emergent institutions sometimes – but I still don’t think you’re exactly right on this.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

I suppose it would lead to a concentration of wealth – perhaps even a concentration of power. I speak often about the underlying anti-democratic instinct of much of libertarianism, which I agree (ironically) threatens the decentralization of power (well, it would threaten it if libertarians had any hope of being a real political force).

But I think the rules that libertarians agree on go much farther than even “those with all the money will assume power and make the rules”. They believe in emergent institutions that dictate the way all individuals (not just the rich ones) interact – on the market or elsewhere. And their understanding of property rights provides ample scope for rules that define and defend those rights.

I would agree to you that in focusing so much on state power they ignore the dominance of the wealthy in building emergent institutions sometimes – but I still don’t think you’re exactly right on this.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

I suppose it would lead to a concentration of wealth – perhaps even a concentration of power. I speak often about the underlying anti-democratic instinct of much of libertarianism, which I agree (ironically) threatens the decentralization of power (well, it would threaten it if libertarians had any hope of being a real political force).

But I think the rules that libertarians agree on go much farther than even “those with all the money will assume power and make the rules”. They believe in emergent institutions that dictate the way all individuals (not just the rich ones) interact – on the market or elsewhere. And their understanding of property rights provides ample scope for rules that define and defend those rights.

I would agree to you that in focusing so much on state power they ignore the dominance of the wealthy in building emergent institutions sometimes – but I still don’t think you’re exactly right on this.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

I suppose it would lead to a concentration of wealth – perhaps even a concentration of power. I speak often about the underlying anti-democratic instinct of much of libertarianism, which I agree (ironically) threatens the decentralization of power (well, it would threaten it if libertarians had any hope of being a real political force).

But I think the rules that libertarians agree on go much farther than even “those with all the money will assume power and make the rules”. They believe in emergent institutions that dictate the way all individuals (not just the rich ones) interact – on the market or elsewhere. And their understanding of property rights provides ample scope for rules that define and defend those rights.

I would agree to you that in focusing so much on state power they ignore the dominance of the wealthy in building emergent institutions sometimes – but I still don’t think you’re exactly right on this.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:56 am

Daniel,

You explain to me how what they promote doesn’t lead to concentration of wealth and power and ultimately indentured servitude. Please do so.

But in one sense it doesn’t lead to a rule-less society as those with all the money will assume power and make the rules as we now see happening.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:56 am

Daniel,

You explain to me how what they promote doesn’t lead to concentration of wealth and power and ultimately indentured servitude. Please do so.

But in one sense it doesn’t lead to a rule-less society as those with all the money will assume power and make the rules as we now see happening.

Gil October 21, 2009 at 4:22 am

Who is ‘they’ in Libertarianism? ;) There are plenty of ‘anarchist’ Libertarians who favour a world without governments and formal laws instead preferring some sort of cooperation and arbitration between private property owners.

Gil October 21, 2009 at 4:22 am

Who is ‘they’ in Libertarianism? ;) There are plenty of ‘anarchist’ Libertarians who favour a world without governments and formal laws instead preferring some sort of cooperation and arbitration between private property owners.

Gil October 21, 2009 at 4:22 am

Who is ‘they’ in Libertarianism? ;) There are plenty of ‘anarchist’ Libertarians who favour a world without governments and formal laws instead preferring some sort of cooperation and arbitration between private property owners.

Gil October 21, 2009 at 4:22 am

Who is ‘they’ in Libertarianism? ;) There are plenty of ‘anarchist’ Libertarians who favour a world without governments and formal laws instead preferring some sort of cooperation and arbitration between private property owners.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:08 pm

They don’t promote a ruleless society – get over that, muirgeo.

Sam Grove October 20, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Geez George, I think that a society with too many rules rewards cheaters. People who don’t cheat are restrained by the rules while cheaters get ahead. How else to explain G Bush in the White house?

Sam Grove October 20, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Geez George, I think that a society with too many rules rewards cheaters. People who don’t cheat are restrained by the rules while cheaters get ahead. How else to explain G Bush in the White house?

Sam Grove October 20, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Geez George, I think that a society with too many rules rewards cheaters. People who don’t cheat are restrained by the rules while cheaters get ahead. How else to explain G Bush in the White house?

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Time after time, muirduck, you out do yourself in total stupidity, absolute dumb-ass blind idiocy.

However, as a Village Idiot you perform flawlessly.

I won’t even grace your two idiot posts above with debate, they deserve nothing but scorn.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 7:28 am

Yeah sure whatever you say “MinArcMan… with a government pension”. Because coming from you it means SOOO much to me.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:49 am

What a surprise, my little pet. You actually think I write my praise of your intellect for your consumption? Further proof my critique in praise of your intellect is well justified.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:49 am

What a surprise, my little pet. You actually think I write my praise of your intellect for your consumption? Further proof my critique in praise of your intellect is well justified.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:49 am

What a surprise, my little pet. You actually think I write my praise of your intellect for your consumption? Further proof my critique in praise of your intellect is well justified.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:49 am

What a surprise, my little pet. You actually think I write my praise of your intellect for your consumption? Further proof my critique in praise of your intellect is well justified.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:49 am

What a surprise, my little pet. You actually think I write my praise of your intellect for your consumption? Further proof my critique in praise of your intellect is well justified.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 7:28 am

Yeah sure whatever you say “MinArcMan… with a government pension”. Because coming from you it means SOOO much to me.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 7:28 am

Yeah sure whatever you say “MinArcMan… with a government pension”. Because coming from you it means SOOO much to me.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 7:28 am

Yeah sure whatever you say “MinArcMan… with a government pension”. Because coming from you it means SOOO much to me.

Justin P October 22, 2009 at 3:24 am

He is truly a GOD among mortals.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Time after time, muirduck, you out do yourself in total stupidity, absolute dumb-ass blind idiocy.

However, as a Village Idiot you perform flawlessly.

I won’t even grace your two idiot posts above with debate, they deserve nothing but scorn.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Time after time, muirduck, you out do yourself in total stupidity, absolute dumb-ass blind idiocy.

However, as a Village Idiot you perform flawlessly.

I won’t even grace your two idiot posts above with debate, they deserve nothing but scorn.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Time after time, muirduck, you out do yourself in total stupidity, absolute dumb-ass blind idiocy.

However, as a Village Idiot you perform flawlessly.

I won’t even grace your two idiot posts above with debate, they deserve nothing but scorn.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Your good students would still study hard regardless… out of the desire to truly improve themselves. Your not so good students looking for easy riches would take advantage of the situation to solely improve their personal standing with out regard to the bigger picture issues.

Now if on the first day of class you said people had to score well on their test but there were no rules and you could cheat, copy answers from others or reference a textbook those same less principled students would cheat and get a good grade. Again they would have learned nothing compared with the principled student who studies and learned his lesson. But the cheaters and greedy lazy students would come out on top.

The rule-less society you would like to foist upon us… the one we basically have… where cheats and greed mongers can and do come out on top is no answer to irresponsible behavior.

The bonuses being paid at Goldman-Sachs and the massive accumulations of wealth to the non-productive finance industry from the productive main street of America is in no proportion to personal responsibility.

We are seeing the cheats, the greed mongers and the lazy make easy fortunes off of short cuts, robbery, and collusion that have nothing to do with adding to the productive society.

Your class and society as well needs rules that reward production over deviancy and short cuts to ill gotten wealth. Promotion of a rule-less society IS promotion of personal irresponsibility.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:01 am

If this episode was truly only an effort to protect the brand, and if the NFL wants to be consistent in it’s refusal of controversial personalities associated with their sport, they need to remove Keith Olbermann from the Football Night in America broadcast.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:01 am

If this episode was truly only an effort to protect the brand, and if the NFL wants to be consistent in it’s refusal of controversial personalities associated with their sport, they need to remove Keith Olbermann from the Football Night in America broadcast.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:01 am

If this episode was truly only an effort to protect the brand, and if the NFL wants to be consistent in it’s refusal of controversial personalities associated with their sport, they need to remove Keith Olbermann from the Football Night in America broadcast.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:01 am

If this episode was truly only an effort to protect the brand, and if the NFL wants to be consistent in it’s refusal of controversial personalities associated with their sport, they need to remove Keith Olbermann from the Football Night in America broadcast.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 12:16 am

I read Limbaugh’s explanation of what happened and no where did I see him denying personal responsibility, not even for being himself.I read the letter from Bill Stamps and I see the words of an agenda driven looney lefty, because he clearly is misrepresenting Limbaugh and his position, the same sort of thing Duplicitous Kuehn does all the time. This disingenuous way of presenting things must be taught at Socialist High School as a way of trying to fool people.”However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. Equality and fairness for all people are not a major concern to him. He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.” As if Bill Stamps is stupid enough (perhaps he is) to believe that the harsh and cold world is something Limbaugh created…never existed before Limbaugh came along. How about it Duplicitous Kuehn, think Limbaugh was the one that dreamed up cold and harsh, eh? Before Limbaugh the world was peaceful, fair, equal, and uneventful, eh DK?There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh. This subject has been beat to death, flayed like a dead horse, and there is no (and never will be) headway made between the thumbsucking position of the looney left as represented by the Stamps, muirduck, and kuehns of the world, and the self responsible positions of such as Limbaugh, myself, Brotio, Methinks, Randy, MesaEconoguy, Low country Joe, et. al.The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.Any intelligent person in this world knows he is going to die; furthermore, he knows that regardless of how it happens that death is inevitable. Knowing this, short of deliberate murder, can he assign responsibility for that death to any other than nature? No. Next question: Once he knows his birth was beyond his control, and acknowledges his death as inevitable, how can he morally or legally assign responsibility, or ask for assistance, for his day to day health and well being to anyone else?The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone, submerged in the idiocy of the socialist loonies who promise something for nothing and find sufficient weak intellectually deficient people to believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch, and to vote for it to be delivered to their door.http://bcsteaparty.com/2009/10/19/yct-hosts-lor…This is where your nation is going, God help you young ones, your life is really going to suck.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:30 am

RE: “There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh.”

Read my posts – I said that Stamps was knocking Limbaugh. That was my whole point. Don was arguing that Stamps has a problem with responsibility. My point was that Stamps didn’t demonstrate any problem he has with personal responsibility, he was just mocking Limbaugh. I wholly agree with you on this.

RE: “The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.”

Hmmm… not exactly the most pressing division in the world today, but I’m of the “free individuals” opinion myself.

RE: “The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone”

OK, take a deep breath, pull yourself together, and cut the drama queen act.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:30 am

RE: “There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh.”

Read my posts – I said that Stamps was knocking Limbaugh. That was my whole point. Don was arguing that Stamps has a problem with responsibility. My point was that Stamps didn’t demonstrate any problem he has with personal responsibility, he was just mocking Limbaugh. I wholly agree with you on this.

RE: “The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.”

Hmmm… not exactly the most pressing division in the world today, but I’m of the “free individuals” opinion myself.

RE: “The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone”

OK, take a deep breath, pull yourself together, and cut the drama queen act.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:30 am

RE: “There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh.”

Read my posts – I said that Stamps was knocking Limbaugh. That was my whole point. Don was arguing that Stamps has a problem with responsibility. My point was that Stamps didn’t demonstrate any problem he has with personal responsibility, he was just mocking Limbaugh. I wholly agree with you on this.

RE: “The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.”

Hmmm… not exactly the most pressing division in the world today, but I’m of the “free individuals” opinion myself.

RE: “The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone”

OK, take a deep breath, pull yourself together, and cut the drama queen act.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 6:01 pm

Oh Junior, how suave and sophisticated you are. You haven’t figured out yet or saw the evidence in history that the useful idiot is the first ones they get rid of.

I’ll promise not to miss you.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:30 am

RE: “There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh.”

Read my posts – I said that Stamps was knocking Limbaugh. That was my whole point. Don was arguing that Stamps has a problem with responsibility. My point was that Stamps didn’t demonstrate any problem he has with personal responsibility, he was just mocking Limbaugh. I wholly agree with you on this.

RE: “The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.”

Hmmm… not exactly the most pressing division in the world today, but I’m of the “free individuals” opinion myself.

RE: “The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone”

OK, take a deep breath, pull yourself together, and cut the drama queen act.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:30 am

RE: “There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh.”

Read my posts – I said that Stamps was knocking Limbaugh. That was my whole point. Don was arguing that Stamps has a problem with responsibility. My point was that Stamps didn’t demonstrate any problem he has with personal responsibility, he was just mocking Limbaugh. I wholly agree with you on this.

RE: “The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.”

Hmmm… not exactly the most pressing division in the world today, but I’m of the “free individuals” opinion myself.

RE: “The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone”

OK, take a deep breath, pull yourself together, and cut the drama queen act.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 12:16 am

I read Limbaugh’s explanation of what happened and no where did I see him denying personal responsibility, not even for being himself.I read the letter from Bill Stamps and I see the words of an agenda driven looney lefty, because he clearly is misrepresenting Limbaugh and his position, the same sort of thing Duplicitous Kuehn does all the time. This disingenuous way of presenting things must be taught at Socialist High School as a way of trying to fool people.”However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. Equality and fairness for all people are not a major concern to him. He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.” As if Bill Stamps is stupid enough (perhaps he is) to believe that the harsh and cold world is something Limbaugh created…never existed before Limbaugh came along. How about it Duplicitous Kuehn, think Limbaugh was the one that dreamed up cold and harsh, eh? Before Limbaugh the world was peaceful, fair, equal, and uneventful, eh DK?There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh. This subject has been beat to death, flayed like a dead horse, and there is no (and never will be) headway made between the thumbsucking position of the looney left as represented by the Stamps, muirduck, and kuehns of the world, and the self responsible positions of such as Limbaugh, myself, Brotio, Methinks, Randy, MesaEconoguy, Low country Joe, et. al.The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.Any intelligent person in this world knows he is going to die; furthermore, he knows that regardless of how it happens that death is inevitable. Knowing this, short of deliberate murder, can he assign responsibility for that death to any other than nature? No. Next question: Once he knows his birth was beyond his control, and acknowledges his death as inevitable, how can he morally or legally assign responsibility, or ask for assistance, for his day to day health and well being to anyone else?The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone, submerged in the idiocy of the socialist loonies who promise something for nothing and find sufficient weak intellectually deficient people to believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch, and to vote for it to be delivered to their door.http://bcsteaparty.com/2009/10/19/yct-hosts-lor…This is where your nation is going, God help you young ones, your life is really going to suck.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 12:16 am

I read Limbaugh’s explanation of what happened and no where did I see him denying personal responsibility, not even for being himself.I read the letter from Bill Stamps and I see the words of an agenda driven looney lefty, because he clearly is misrepresenting Limbaugh and his position, the same sort of thing Duplicitous Kuehn does all the time. This disingenuous way of presenting things must be taught at Socialist High School as a way of trying to fool people.”However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. Equality and fairness for all people are not a major concern to him. He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.” As if Bill Stamps is stupid enough (perhaps he is) to believe that the harsh and cold world is something Limbaugh created…never existed before Limbaugh came along. How about it Duplicitous Kuehn, think Limbaugh was the one that dreamed up cold and harsh, eh? Before Limbaugh the world was peaceful, fair, equal, and uneventful, eh DK?There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh. This subject has been beat to death, flayed like a dead horse, and there is no (and never will be) headway made between the thumbsucking position of the looney left as represented by the Stamps, muirduck, and kuehns of the world, and the self responsible positions of such as Limbaugh, myself, Brotio, Methinks, Randy, MesaEconoguy, Low country Joe, et. al.The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.Any intelligent person in this world knows he is going to die; furthermore, he knows that regardless of how it happens that death is inevitable. Knowing this, short of deliberate murder, can he assign responsibility for that death to any other than nature? No. Next question: Once he knows his birth was beyond his control, and acknowledges his death as inevitable, how can he morally or legally assign responsibility, or ask for assistance, for his day to day health and well being to anyone else?The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone, submerged in the idiocy of the socialist loonies who promise something for nothing and find sufficient weak intellectually deficient people to believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch, and to vote for it to be delivered to their door.http://bcsteaparty.com/2009/10/19/yct-hosts-lor…This is where your nation is going, God help you young ones, your life is really going to suck.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 12:16 am

I read Limbaugh’s explanation of what happened and no where did I see him denying personal responsibility, not even for being himself.I read the letter from Bill Stamps and I see the words of an agenda driven looney lefty, because he clearly is misrepresenting Limbaugh and his position, the same sort of thing Duplicitous Kuehn does all the time. This disingenuous way of presenting things must be taught at Socialist High School as a way of trying to fool people.”However, Limbaugh is a victim of the world he works daily to create. A world that is cold and harsh. Equality and fairness for all people are not a major concern to him. He is an ardent believer in unconditional self-responsibility — the idea that most people are responsible for their problems and shortcomings.” As if Bill Stamps is stupid enough (perhaps he is) to believe that the harsh and cold world is something Limbaugh created…never existed before Limbaugh came along. How about it Duplicitous Kuehn, think Limbaugh was the one that dreamed up cold and harsh, eh? Before Limbaugh the world was peaceful, fair, equal, and uneventful, eh DK?There is no way an active and alert intellect can read those words and not understand that Stamps is denigrating Limbaugh. This subject has been beat to death, flayed like a dead horse, and there is no (and never will be) headway made between the thumbsucking position of the looney left as represented by the Stamps, muirduck, and kuehns of the world, and the self responsible positions of such as Limbaugh, myself, Brotio, Methinks, Randy, MesaEconoguy, Low country Joe, et. al.The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.Any intelligent person in this world knows he is going to die; furthermore, he knows that regardless of how it happens that death is inevitable. Knowing this, short of deliberate murder, can he assign responsibility for that death to any other than nature? No. Next question: Once he knows his birth was beyond his control, and acknowledges his death as inevitable, how can he morally or legally assign responsibility, or ask for assistance, for his day to day health and well being to anyone else?The USA is clearly lost, the once bright dream gone, submerged in the idiocy of the socialist loonies who promise something for nothing and find sufficient weak intellectually deficient people to believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch, and to vote for it to be delivered to their door.http://bcsteaparty.com/2009/10/19/yct-hosts-lor…This is where your nation is going, God help you young ones, your life is really going to suck.

Paul October 21, 2009 at 12:52 am

It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).

Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. You are reaping what he has sowed, KARMA, “Palin and simple” like his followers. Don’t we all feel better?

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

Paul October 21, 2009 at 12:52 am

It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).

Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. You are reaping what he has sowed, KARMA, “Palin and simple” like his followers. Don’t we all feel better?

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

Paul October 21, 2009 at 12:52 am

It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).

Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. You are reaping what he has sowed, KARMA, “Palin and simple” like his followers. Don’t we all feel better?

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

Paul October 21, 2009 at 12:52 am

It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).

Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. You are reaping what he has sowed, KARMA, “Palin and simple” like his followers. Don’t we all feel better?

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

Gil October 21, 2009 at 1:21 am

Ohhhhh, so when Blacks don’t want to associate with Whitey it’s ‘rascism to the extreme’. Yet when Whites don’t want to associate and hire black people it’s their Libertarian right under the 1st Amendment.

Gil October 21, 2009 at 1:21 am

Ohhhhh, so when Blacks don’t want to associate with Whitey it’s ‘rascism to the extreme’. Yet when Whites don’t want to associate and hire black people it’s their Libertarian right under the 1st Amendment.

Gil October 21, 2009 at 1:21 am

Ohhhhh, so when Blacks don’t want to associate with Whitey it’s ‘rascism to the extreme’. Yet when Whites don’t want to associate and hire black people it’s their Libertarian right under the 1st Amendment.

Gil October 21, 2009 at 1:21 am

Ohhhhh, so when Blacks don’t want to associate with Whitey it’s ‘rascism to the extreme’. Yet when Whites don’t want to associate and hire black people it’s their Libertarian right under the 1st Amendment.

Paul October 21, 2009 at 3:48 am

The NFL decides who becomes an owner not the other way around.

All this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has to offer is his money and his opinions, which in my opinion are on the fringes of racism (one mans opinion). There are many more groups biding for the Rams, not just his group. Lets face it there are more men with money that will gladly fill the slot and the Rams will win or lose depending on how well the team works together not on whether or not Rush is an owner.

As for Vick, well he is a player (he has talent not like you, Rush or I, unless you are a NFL player?) and he served his time and the NFL decided we live in the land of second chances, so why not (I personally don’t like it but, oh well). Life has never been fair (NEWS FLASH!)

Now as to the “Free Speech” argument, I guess many of you like myself heard Rush on Thursday “Almost in tears”, priceless. But the last two days he now is in his normal ranting and will continue until someone surpasses him, “Free Speech” continues, so quit your whining.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

Paul October 21, 2009 at 3:48 am

The NFL decides who becomes an owner not the other way around.

All this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has to offer is his money and his opinions, which in my opinion are on the fringes of racism (one mans opinion). There are many more groups biding for the Rams, not just his group. Lets face it there are more men with money that will gladly fill the slot and the Rams will win or lose depending on how well the team works together not on whether or not Rush is an owner.

As for Vick, well he is a player (he has talent not like you, Rush or I, unless you are a NFL player?) and he served his time and the NFL decided we live in the land of second chances, so why not (I personally don’t like it but, oh well). Life has never been fair (NEWS FLASH!)

Now as to the “Free Speech” argument, I guess many of you like myself heard Rush on Thursday “Almost in tears”, priceless. But the last two days he now is in his normal ranting and will continue until someone surpasses him, “Free Speech” continues, so quit your whining.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

Paul October 21, 2009 at 3:48 am

The NFL decides who becomes an owner not the other way around.

All this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has to offer is his money and his opinions, which in my opinion are on the fringes of racism (one mans opinion). There are many more groups biding for the Rams, not just his group. Lets face it there are more men with money that will gladly fill the slot and the Rams will win or lose depending on how well the team works together not on whether or not Rush is an owner.

As for Vick, well he is a player (he has talent not like you, Rush or I, unless you are a NFL player?) and he served his time and the NFL decided we live in the land of second chances, so why not (I personally don’t like it but, oh well). Life has never been fair (NEWS FLASH!)

Now as to the “Free Speech” argument, I guess many of you like myself heard Rush on Thursday “Almost in tears”, priceless. But the last two days he now is in his normal ranting and will continue until someone surpasses him, “Free Speech” continues, so quit your whining.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 2:15 am

Paul, my little looney left radical, just what in the list of Limbaugh statements contained on that link do you assert are lies and are racist?

They all appear to me to be accurate and truthful. Is it racist in your looney world to tell the truth?

Of courssssse it is, looney is normal and routine in your world.

Gil October 22, 2009 at 2:42 am

Geez! If muirgeo wanted a make of list of vidyohs-pidities this would be a good start!

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Well shucks my pet, I’ll be happy for you to pull any of the attributed comments on Paul’s list, quote it here and then explain how it is racist.

You may think they are blunt, rude, mean, spiteful, honest to the point of pain, but racist? Find one in which Limbaugh says or indicates a belief in the superiority of one race over another.

Truth knows no race, honesty knows no race; what you left leaning loonies want is for us to live the lie that political correctness has attempted to create in this nation, and has to some degree been successful in so doing. I refuse to cooperate in that foolishness and say so publicly.

So if you’d like to begin a list of vidyohs-pidities using this as a starting point, go ahead and make a laughing stock of yourself. I can reasonably kick your ass in defense of anything I write here, perhaps not to you but to an impartial jury of other posters and participants on the Cafe, which in reality is all I care about when I comment.

muirpidities exist on the other hand because they are stupid utterances by a socialist fool, who is given the opportunity to explain or defend and proves himself consistently unable to do so, and again that impartial jury of participants here on the Cafe have passed judgment on muirduck’s total lack of intelligent capability.

You join him at your own debasement, and that is strictly voluntary on your part.

Paul October 21, 2009 at 3:48 am

The NFL decides who becomes an owner not the other way around.

All this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has to offer is his money and his opinions, which in my opinion are on the fringes of racism (one mans opinion). There are many more groups biding for the Rams, not just his group. Lets face it there are more men with money that will gladly fill the slot and the Rams will win or lose depending on how well the team works together not on whether or not Rush is an owner.

As for Vick, well he is a player (he has talent not like you, Rush or I, unless you are a NFL player?) and he served his time and the NFL decided we live in the land of second chances, so why not (I personally don’t like it but, oh well). Life has never been fair (NEWS FLASH!)

Now as to the “Free Speech” argument, I guess many of you like myself heard Rush on Thursday “Almost in tears”, priceless. But the last two days he now is in his normal ranting and will continue until someone surpasses him, “Free Speech” continues, so quit your whining.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:44 am

So I was thinking about this… it is kind of ironic that people are defending Limbaugh’s dedication to personal responsibility, in light of the McNabb comment.

Because let’s remember – it’s not just McNabb’s own fame. Limbaugh attributed the success of “black coaches and black quarterbacks” to the media who want to see them do well too.

So Limbaugh, the champion of being responsible for your own fate in life, thinks the success of McNabb and unnamed black coaches and quarterbacks is due to the media??? Something seems incongruent here…

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:44 am

So I was thinking about this… it is kind of ironic that people are defending Limbaugh’s dedication to personal responsibility, in light of the McNabb comment.

Because let’s remember – it’s not just McNabb’s own fame. Limbaugh attributed the success of “black coaches and black quarterbacks” to the media who want to see them do well too.

So Limbaugh, the champion of being responsible for your own fate in life, thinks the success of McNabb and unnamed black coaches and quarterbacks is due to the media??? Something seems incongruent here…

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 2:12 am

Nothing incongruent except in an incapable mind, sonny.

You have created your own dilemma through your desire to be clever on all fronts.

Limbaugh said, and said correctly, that if McNabb were judged by the same standards of white QBs and left to the success his own personal abilities and personal responsibility dictated, then McNabb would be considered just an average journeyman QB; and, that it is the media that inflates such as McNabb as being special and pounds the drum for his success, and their being black is the only reasonable explanation for this.

Nothing inconsistent there at all.

You, DK, suffer from the inability to solve one of life’s big puzzles, and that is recognizing the dots that you have to connect to speak intelligently.

You hint that I was being mellow dramatic above in my comment about America being lost, yet you had all the elements to see and understand I am exactly correct.

You had the link to the excerpt of Lord Monckten’s talk, in which he describes some of the little known details of the treaty that will be signed the the stupids in Obams’s administration, I don’t know if it will be the chief idiot or Hillary, but it will be one or the other.

Now what does that treaty mean to you? Like Monckten said, it means that the USA will be bound by the treaty and will have given up most of its sovereignty in the interest of Climate Change that does not exist.

Here is Art VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. Gear your little brain up and read it, then try to understand it.

Article Vi: paragraph 2
“This constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

In simple language my little one, that means you are fucked. You and I will be forced to live by the stupidities contained in that treaty, and as the enforcer of that treaty will be the UN, how can our government deny UN troops access to our soil to enforce the provisions of that treaty, how do we deny the UN the funds it demands to enforce and police the treaty? So, was my comment the comment of a “drama queen”, my pet? No. It is the simple true statement of one who is miles ahead of you in comprehension of things political.

You are way too young, inexperienced, and uneducated, DK, to be allowed to play on the Cafe.

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 10:11 am

RE: “You hint that I was being mellow dramatic [sic] above in my comment about America being lost, yet you had all the elements to see and understand I am exactly correct.”

No, I wasn’t hinting. I pretty much just said it.

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 4:16 pm

RE: “The world is clearly divided by an unbridgable chasm of individual opinion on whether humans are collective like ants or free individuals.”

Hmmm… not exactly the most pressing division in the world today, but I’m of the “free individuals” opinion myself.

Why am I not surprised to learn that you dismiss freedom as a secondary concern?

What is the more important, freedom or the color of your lipstick? Perhaps the quality of your tofu is more pressing than defense of freedom? I don’t know, maybe you think the color of the car you drive is more important than the freedom to buy gas when you decide you need it.

Tell us oh aged, wise, and experienced one, just what is the most pressing concern in the world today?

Freedom, not the most pressing concern in the world. Only from a child like thought process could such a proclimation come.

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 5:12 pm

RE: “Why am I not surprised to learn that you dismiss freedom as a secondary concern?”

You really are off in your own little world, aren’t you vidyohs?

I never dismissed freedom as a secondary concern – I dismissed that division as the most pressing division there is to be concerned about. Freedom is of primary importance, but it’s precisely because that division isn’t really central that I can dismiss the division as not being one of the most important.

And granted, that’s very context-based. If I lived in Pakistan or Iran or China, that division in opinion probably would be my primary concern. So to a large extent the answer depends on the context we’re refering to.

Justin P October 22, 2009 at 3:26 am

Well Limbaugh was right in one regard about McNabb, he sucks and he’ll never win a Superbowl. He he doesn’t even know that there are only 3 timeouts a half!

And yes I’m biased, I’m a Giants fanboy! Go Big Blue!

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:44 am

So I was thinking about this… it is kind of ironic that people are defending Limbaugh’s dedication to personal responsibility, in light of the McNabb comment.

Because let’s remember – it’s not just McNabb’s own fame. Limbaugh attributed the success of “black coaches and black quarterbacks” to the media who want to see them do well too.

So Limbaugh, the champion of being responsible for your own fate in life, thinks the success of McNabb and unnamed black coaches and quarterbacks is due to the media??? Something seems incongruent here…

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:44 am

So I was thinking about this… it is kind of ironic that people are defending Limbaugh’s dedication to personal responsibility, in light of the McNabb comment.

Because let’s remember – it’s not just McNabb’s own fame. Limbaugh attributed the success of “black coaches and black quarterbacks” to the media who want to see them do well too.

So Limbaugh, the champion of being responsible for your own fate in life, thinks the success of McNabb and unnamed black coaches and quarterbacks is due to the media??? Something seems incongruent here…

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:44 am

So I was thinking about this… it is kind of ironic that people are defending Limbaugh’s dedication to personal responsibility, in light of the McNabb comment.

Because let’s remember – it’s not just McNabb’s own fame. Limbaugh attributed the success of “black coaches and black quarterbacks” to the media who want to see them do well too.

So Limbaugh, the champion of being responsible for your own fate in life, thinks the success of McNabb and unnamed black coaches and quarterbacks is due to the media??? Something seems incongruent here…

muirgeo October 22, 2009 at 12:46 pm

I just think the poetic justice here is too great. Lard Ass Rush cheered when Chicago didn’t get the Olympic bid and here he was denied even to bid. And in the mean time Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize. Rush’s head should be exploding any minute. That’ll be some nice YouTube video.

Anonymous October 23, 2009 at 3:40 am

I’ve seen your picture.

Funny that you would call someone else, “lard ass”.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:43 pm

Examples?

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:43 pm

Examples?

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:43 pm

Examples?

Justin P October 22, 2009 at 3:18 am
Methinks October 20, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Would the NFL have kicked Jesse Jackson out for calling NYC “Hymie Town”. I don’t think so.

The NAACP comment had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a particular stance it took on a particular issue. But, of course, to liberals, any negative comment about a black organization is racist. I don’t know what the context of the caller quote and I suspect you don’t either, but you’re eager to accept it without question. Of course, when Obama’s book was quoted to you, you suddenly wanted context.

I don’t care if the NFL kicked Limbaugh out or not. But, it’s pretty clear he’s not racist. They just don’t like him. They’re a private organization and they’re free to accept or reject anyone they like.

In what way is Limbaugh a jerk? Just curious – since you seem to speak for the millions of people who don’t like him, I figured you would have The Answer.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Would the NFL have kicked Jesse Jackson out for calling NYC “Hymie Town”. I don’t think so.

The NAACP comment had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a particular stance it took on a particular issue. But, of course, to liberals, any negative comment about a black organization is racist. I don’t know what the context of the caller quote and I suspect you don’t either, but you’re eager to accept it without question. Of course, when Obama’s book was quoted to you, you suddenly wanted context.

I don’t care if the NFL kicked Limbaugh out or not. But, it’s pretty clear he’s not racist. They just don’t like him. They’re a private organization and they’re free to accept or reject anyone they like.

In what way is Limbaugh a jerk? Just curious – since you seem to speak for the millions of people who don’t like him, I figured you would have The Answer.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Would the NFL have kicked Jesse Jackson out for calling NYC “Hymie Town”. I don’t think so.

The NAACP comment had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a particular stance it took on a particular issue. But, of course, to liberals, any negative comment about a black organization is racist. I don’t know what the context of the caller quote and I suspect you don’t either, but you’re eager to accept it without question. Of course, when Obama’s book was quoted to you, you suddenly wanted context.

I don’t care if the NFL kicked Limbaugh out or not. But, it’s pretty clear he’s not racist. They just don’t like him. They’re a private organization and they’re free to accept or reject anyone they like.

In what way is Limbaugh a jerk? Just curious – since you seem to speak for the millions of people who don’t like him, I figured you would have The Answer.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Would the NFL have kicked Jesse Jackson out for calling NYC “Hymie Town”. I don’t think so.

The NAACP comment had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a particular stance it took on a particular issue. But, of course, to liberals, any negative comment about a black organization is racist. I don’t know what the context of the caller quote and I suspect you don’t either, but you’re eager to accept it without question. Of course, when Obama’s book was quoted to you, you suddenly wanted context.

I don’t care if the NFL kicked Limbaugh out or not. But, it’s pretty clear he’s not racist. They just don’t like him. They’re a private organization and they’re free to accept or reject anyone they like.

In what way is Limbaugh a jerk? Just curious – since you seem to speak for the millions of people who don’t like him, I figured you would have The Answer.

Dave October 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Are you sure those are accurate quotes? I know there were some quotes attributed to Limbaugh used against him in this debate that he never actually said. Which ones in particular I don’t remember.

I’m not a Limbaugh fan, and I do think to a certain extent he’s reaping what he sowed — his show is based on his being controversial, and NFL owners (most of whom, I’d bet, tend to agree with him on his politics) don’t like controversy. But fabricating quotes and then using them against anyone is unacceptable.

Dave October 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Are you sure those are accurate quotes? I know there were some quotes attributed to Limbaugh used against him in this debate that he never actually said. Which ones in particular I don’t remember.

I’m not a Limbaugh fan, and I do think to a certain extent he’s reaping what he sowed — his show is based on his being controversial, and NFL owners (most of whom, I’d bet, tend to agree with him on his politics) don’t like controversy. But fabricating quotes and then using them against anyone is unacceptable.

Dave October 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Are you sure those are accurate quotes? I know there were some quotes attributed to Limbaugh used against him in this debate that he never actually said. Which ones in particular I don’t remember.

I’m not a Limbaugh fan, and I do think to a certain extent he’s reaping what he sowed — his show is based on his being controversial, and NFL owners (most of whom, I’d bet, tend to agree with him on his politics) don’t like controversy. But fabricating quotes and then using them against anyone is unacceptable.

Dave October 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Are you sure those are accurate quotes? I know there were some quotes attributed to Limbaugh used against him in this debate that he never actually said. Which ones in particular I don’t remember.

I’m not a Limbaugh fan, and I do think to a certain extent he’s reaping what he sowed — his show is based on his being controversial, and NFL owners (most of whom, I’d bet, tend to agree with him on his politics) don’t like controversy. But fabricating quotes and then using them against anyone is unacceptable.

mark October 21, 2009 at 2:28 am

I agree.

Rush is entertaining because he is cooky. Often times, he can be a jerk.

According to snopes.com, the “take that bone out of your nose” quote was said by rush thirty years ago when he was still a small time DJ. People make mistakes, It happened a long time ago. I will give him a pass on that one.

Rush can is anything but politically correct. Because of this, he often offends people and part of the appeal of his show to some is that he just does not care.

While he may be offensive, he is anything but a racist. That is a ruse that has been painted upon him by some on the left. Everyone needs their villian. Now that Bush is gone, the villain to the left is now Rush.

mark October 21, 2009 at 2:28 am

I agree.

Rush is entertaining because he is cooky. Often times, he can be a jerk.

According to snopes.com, the “take that bone out of your nose” quote was said by rush thirty years ago when he was still a small time DJ. People make mistakes, It happened a long time ago. I will give him a pass on that one.

Rush can is anything but politically correct. Because of this, he often offends people and part of the appeal of his show to some is that he just does not care.

While he may be offensive, he is anything but a racist. That is a ruse that has been painted upon him by some on the left. Everyone needs their villian. Now that Bush is gone, the villain to the left is now Rush.

mark October 21, 2009 at 2:28 am

I agree.

Rush is entertaining because he is cooky. Often times, he can be a jerk.

According to snopes.com, the “take that bone out of your nose” quote was said by rush thirty years ago when he was still a small time DJ. People make mistakes, It happened a long time ago. I will give him a pass on that one.

Rush can is anything but politically correct. Because of this, he often offends people and part of the appeal of his show to some is that he just does not care.

While he may be offensive, he is anything but a racist. That is a ruse that has been painted upon him by some on the left. Everyone needs their villian. Now that Bush is gone, the villain to the left is now Rush.

mark October 21, 2009 at 2:28 am

I agree.

Rush is entertaining because he is cooky. Often times, he can be a jerk.

According to snopes.com, the “take that bone out of your nose” quote was said by rush thirty years ago when he was still a small time DJ. People make mistakes, It happened a long time ago. I will give him a pass on that one.

Rush can is anything but politically correct. Because of this, he often offends people and part of the appeal of his show to some is that he just does not care.

While he may be offensive, he is anything but a racist. That is a ruse that has been painted upon him by some on the left. Everyone needs their villian. Now that Bush is gone, the villain to the left is now Rush.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:55 pm

RE: “The NAACP comment had nothing to do with racism.”

Ya, I’d agree. I’ve never called Rush a racist – I said he was cooky and a jerk. Often he’s a jerk on racially sensitive issues, but I’ve never called him a racist Methinks.

Which leads me to wonder….

RE: “But, of course, to liberals, any negative comment about a black organization is racist.”

Who is reading race into things? You’re the one that brought racism up, Methinks, not me.

RE: “Would the NFL have kicked Jesse Jackson out for calling NYC “Hymie Town”. I don’t think so.”

I doubt the NFL wants anything to do with the controversy swirling around Jackson either. Jackson bugs me, but I have to say he doesn’t bug me with nearly the frequency that Limabugh does – that counts for something.

Are you under the impression the NFL is some bastion of liberalism or something? Geez – I could understand people getting hypersensitive about academia and the media. I thought those claims were a little overwrought, but did have truth to them. But now it’s the NFL that embraces Jackson and rejects Limbaugh for political reasons?

Come on Methinks. They’re avoiding bad press. I don’t think they’d want to sell a team to Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore or anyone like that.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:55 pm

RE: “The NAACP comment had nothing to do with racism.”

Ya, I’d agree. I’ve never called Rush a racist – I said he was cooky and a jerk. Often he’s a jerk on racially sensitive issues, but I’ve never called him a racist Methinks.

Which leads me to wonder….

RE: “But, of course, to liberals, any negative comment about a black organization is racist.”

Who is reading race into things? You’re the one that brought racism up, Methinks, not me.

RE: “Would the NFL have kicked Jesse Jackson out for calling NYC “Hymie Town”. I don’t think so.”

I doubt the NFL wants anything to do with the controversy swirling around Jackson either. Jackson bugs me, but I have to say he doesn’t bug me with nearly the frequency that Limabugh does – that counts for something.

Are you under the impression the NFL is some bastion of liberalism or something? Geez – I could understand people getting hypersensitive about academia and the media. I thought those claims were a little overwrought, but did have truth to them. But now it’s the NFL that embraces Jackson and rejects Limbaugh for political reasons?

Come on Methinks. They’re avoiding bad press. I don’t think they’d want to sell a team to Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore or anyone like that.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:55 pm

RE: “The NAACP comment had nothing to do with racism.”

Ya, I’d agree. I’ve never called Rush a racist – I said he was cooky and a jerk. Often he’s a jerk on racially sensitive issues, but I’ve never called him a racist Methinks.

Which leads me to wonder….

RE: “But, of course, to liberals, any negative comment about a black organization is racist.”

Who is reading race into things? You’re the one that brought racism up, Methinks, not me.

RE: “Would the NFL have kicked Jesse Jackson out for calling NYC “Hymie Town”. I don’t think so.”

I doubt the NFL wants anything to do with the controversy swirling around Jackson either. Jackson bugs me, but I have to say he doesn’t bug me with nearly the frequency that Limabugh does – that counts for something.

Are you under the impression the NFL is some bastion of liberalism or something? Geez – I could understand people getting hypersensitive about academia and the media. I thought those claims were a little overwrought, but did have truth to them. But now it’s the NFL that embraces Jackson and rejects Limbaugh for political reasons?

Come on Methinks. They’re avoiding bad press. I don’t think they’d want to sell a team to Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore or anyone like that.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 8:55 pm

RE: “The NAACP comment had nothing to do with racism.”

Ya, I’d agree. I’ve never called Rush a racist – I said he was cooky and a jerk. Often he’s a jerk on racially sensitive issues, but I’ve never called him a racist Methinks.

Which leads me to wonder….

RE: “But, of course, to liberals, any negative comment about a black organization is racist.”

Who is reading race into things? You’re the one that brought racism up, Methinks, not me.

RE: “Would the NFL have kicked Jesse Jackson out for calling NYC “Hymie Town”. I don’t think so.”

I doubt the NFL wants anything to do with the controversy swirling around Jackson either. Jackson bugs me, but I have to say he doesn’t bug me with nearly the frequency that Limabugh does – that counts for something.

Are you under the impression the NFL is some bastion of liberalism or something? Geez – I could understand people getting hypersensitive about academia and the media. I thought those claims were a little overwrought, but did have truth to them. But now it’s the NFL that embraces Jackson and rejects Limbaugh for political reasons?

Come on Methinks. They’re avoiding bad press. I don’t think they’d want to sell a team to Jesse Jackson or Michael Moore or anyone like that.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Please explain to me how you can know why he gets his ratings without reading minds but you can’t possible “read the mind” of a columnist when he plainly writes what’s on his mind in black and white. Just a curious double standard of yours.

“Now that’s the kind of statement that requires some mind reading.”

No, it requires paying attention and not turning a blind eye to evidence. But, in fairness, unlike you, I’ve never claimed to not be able to read minds :)

I don’t understand what the quote has to do with anything. Is someone who is involved with the NFL not allowed to criticize it from time to time? I do love how Jesse “Hymie Town” Jackson is totally all over Rush for racism. Of course, I suppose the players union is claiming moral superiority because they have absolutely no wife-beating or dog fighting players among them. no…

Still, it’s their choice. Let’s just not pretend that the NFL is just too good for Rush.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Please explain to me how you can know why he gets his ratings without reading minds but you can’t possible “read the mind” of a columnist when he plainly writes what’s on his mind in black and white. Just a curious double standard of yours.

“Now that’s the kind of statement that requires some mind reading.”

No, it requires paying attention and not turning a blind eye to evidence. But, in fairness, unlike you, I’ve never claimed to not be able to read minds :)

I don’t understand what the quote has to do with anything. Is someone who is involved with the NFL not allowed to criticize it from time to time? I do love how Jesse “Hymie Town” Jackson is totally all over Rush for racism. Of course, I suppose the players union is claiming moral superiority because they have absolutely no wife-beating or dog fighting players among them. no…

Still, it’s their choice. Let’s just not pretend that the NFL is just too good for Rush.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Please explain to me how you can know why he gets his ratings without reading minds but you can’t possible “read the mind” of a columnist when he plainly writes what’s on his mind in black and white. Just a curious double standard of yours.

“Now that’s the kind of statement that requires some mind reading.”

No, it requires paying attention and not turning a blind eye to evidence. But, in fairness, unlike you, I’ve never claimed to not be able to read minds :)

I don’t understand what the quote has to do with anything. Is someone who is involved with the NFL not allowed to criticize it from time to time? I do love how Jesse “Hymie Town” Jackson is totally all over Rush for racism. Of course, I suppose the players union is claiming moral superiority because they have absolutely no wife-beating or dog fighting players among them. no…

Still, it’s their choice. Let’s just not pretend that the NFL is just too good for Rush.

Methinks October 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Please explain to me how you can know why he gets his ratings without reading minds but you can’t possible “read the mind” of a columnist when he plainly writes what’s on his mind in black and white. Just a curious double standard of yours.

“Now that’s the kind of statement that requires some mind reading.”

No, it requires paying attention and not turning a blind eye to evidence. But, in fairness, unlike you, I’ve never claimed to not be able to read minds :)

I don’t understand what the quote has to do with anything. Is someone who is involved with the NFL not allowed to criticize it from time to time? I do love how Jesse “Hymie Town” Jackson is totally all over Rush for racism. Of course, I suppose the players union is claiming moral superiority because they have absolutely no wife-beating or dog fighting players among them. no…

Still, it’s their choice. Let’s just not pretend that the NFL is just too good for Rush.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 9:18 pm

RE: “Please explain to me how you can know why he gets his ratings without reading minds”Because people talk about what they think of Rush Limbaugh all the time. It’s plastered in newspapers, on youtube, and on blogs. Plus they call into his show and tell him pretty explicitly.RE: “…but you can’t possible “read the mind” of a columnist when he plainly writes what’s on his mind in black and white.”What Stamps DIDN’T write about was what he thought of personal responsibility – he only related what he thought Rush thought about that. So I don’t know what he thinks about personal responsibility. Don suggested that Stamps thinks the “typical person cannot really exercise much control over his or her fate”. I have no idea how Don thinks he knows that. He never said such a thing. He probably thinks differently from Rush, it’s true. I don’t think any of us on here can say how differently.RE: “Just a curious double standard of yours.”Not really – see my explanation above.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 9:18 pm

RE: “Please explain to me how you can know why he gets his ratings without reading minds”Because people talk about what they think of Rush Limbaugh all the time. It’s plastered in newspapers, on youtube, and on blogs. Plus they call into his show and tell him pretty explicitly.RE: “…but you can’t possible “read the mind” of a columnist when he plainly writes what’s on his mind in black and white.”What Stamps DIDN’T write about was what he thought of personal responsibility – he only related what he thought Rush thought about that. So I don’t know what he thinks about personal responsibility. Don suggested that Stamps thinks the “typical person cannot really exercise much control over his or her fate”. I have no idea how Don thinks he knows that. He never said such a thing. He probably thinks differently from Rush, it’s true. I don’t think any of us on here can say how differently.RE: “Just a curious double standard of yours.”Not really – see my explanation above.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 9:18 pm

RE: “Please explain to me how you can know why he gets his ratings without reading minds”Because people talk about what they think of Rush Limbaugh all the time. It’s plastered in newspapers, on youtube, and on blogs. Plus they call into his show and tell him pretty explicitly.RE: “…but you can’t possible “read the mind” of a columnist when he plainly writes what’s on his mind in black and white.”What Stamps DIDN’T write about was what he thought of personal responsibility – he only related what he thought Rush thought about that. So I don’t know what he thinks about personal responsibility. Don suggested that Stamps thinks the “typical person cannot really exercise much control over his or her fate”. I have no idea how Don thinks he knows that. He never said such a thing. He probably thinks differently from Rush, it’s true. I don’t think any of us on here can say how differently.RE: “Just a curious double standard of yours.”Not really – see my explanation above.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 9:18 pm

RE: “Please explain to me how you can know why he gets his ratings without reading minds”Because people talk about what they think of Rush Limbaugh all the time. It’s plastered in newspapers, on youtube, and on blogs. Plus they call into his show and tell him pretty explicitly.RE: “…but you can’t possible “read the mind” of a columnist when he plainly writes what’s on his mind in black and white.”What Stamps DIDN’T write about was what he thought of personal responsibility – he only related what he thought Rush thought about that. So I don’t know what he thinks about personal responsibility. Don suggested that Stamps thinks the “typical person cannot really exercise much control over his or her fate”. I have no idea how Don thinks he knows that. He never said such a thing. He probably thinks differently from Rush, it’s true. I don’t think any of us on here can say how differently.RE: “Just a curious double standard of yours.”Not really – see my explanation above.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 9:22 pm

I agree. People want to see politics in everything and always blame the liberals or blame the conservatives. There’s a lot about life that has nothing to do with politics.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 9:22 pm

I agree. People want to see politics in everything and always blame the liberals or blame the conservatives. There’s a lot about life that has nothing to do with politics.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm

These should be accurate. Ya, it’s pretty terrible some of the quotes that have been made up. I’ve heard some of these on youtube, from the horses mouth – and the list I copied these from identified the quotes that he denies saying. I don’t see why they would include his protestations on several quotes, but not on others, so I think it’s safe to assume he said these – but I suppose it’s always good to double check.

The ones that were made up have him praising James Earl Ray – it’s pretty awful stuff, and pretty transparently fake I think.

That’s all I’m trying to say – that he’s reaping what he sowed. It’s not partisan or race baiting to point out the fact that the guy is a jerk.

If you’re still concerned I’m happy to track them down and double check – I wouldn’t want to continue to propogate more fake quotes. But since this list identified faked ones, I think these are the genuine article.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm

These should be accurate. Ya, it’s pretty terrible some of the quotes that have been made up. I’ve heard some of these on youtube, from the horses mouth – and the list I copied these from identified the quotes that he denies saying. I don’t see why they would include his protestations on several quotes, but not on others, so I think it’s safe to assume he said these – but I suppose it’s always good to double check.

The ones that were made up have him praising James Earl Ray – it’s pretty awful stuff, and pretty transparently fake I think.

That’s all I’m trying to say – that he’s reaping what he sowed. It’s not partisan or race baiting to point out the fact that the guy is a jerk.

If you’re still concerned I’m happy to track them down and double check – I wouldn’t want to continue to propogate more fake quotes. But since this list identified faked ones, I think these are the genuine article.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm

These should be accurate. Ya, it’s pretty terrible some of the quotes that have been made up. I’ve heard some of these on youtube, from the horses mouth – and the list I copied these from identified the quotes that he denies saying. I don’t see why they would include his protestations on several quotes, but not on others, so I think it’s safe to assume he said these – but I suppose it’s always good to double check.

The ones that were made up have him praising James Earl Ray – it’s pretty awful stuff, and pretty transparently fake I think.

That’s all I’m trying to say – that he’s reaping what he sowed. It’s not partisan or race baiting to point out the fact that the guy is a jerk.

If you’re still concerned I’m happy to track them down and double check – I wouldn’t want to continue to propogate more fake quotes. But since this list identified faked ones, I think these are the genuine article.

Anonymous October 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm

These should be accurate. Ya, it’s pretty terrible some of the quotes that have been made up. I’ve heard some of these on youtube, from the horses mouth – and the list I copied these from identified the quotes that he denies saying. I don’t see why they would include his protestations on several quotes, but not on others, so I think it’s safe to assume he said these – but I suppose it’s always good to double check.

The ones that were made up have him praising James Earl Ray – it’s pretty awful stuff, and pretty transparently fake I think.

That’s all I’m trying to say – that he’s reaping what he sowed. It’s not partisan or race baiting to point out the fact that the guy is a jerk.

If you’re still concerned I’m happy to track them down and double check – I wouldn’t want to continue to propogate more fake quotes. But since this list identified faked ones, I think these are the genuine article.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:03 am

Daniel, this was entirely politics, and you are entirely a fool. Please remove cranium from rectum. Thank you.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:03 am

Daniel, this was entirely politics, and you are entirely a fool. Please remove cranium from rectum. Thank you.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:03 am

Daniel, this was entirely politics, and you are entirely a fool. Please remove cranium from rectum. Thank you.

mesaeconoguy October 21, 2009 at 12:03 am

Daniel, this was entirely politics, and you are entirely a fool. Please remove cranium from rectum. Thank you.

Justin P October 22, 2009 at 3:20 am

Normally, I’d agree but we are living in a hyper-partisan times, so it’s not so easy to separate it all especially on the national level.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:34 am

Rush Limbaugh was removed from Monday Night Football. Keith Olbermann is still working pro football.

One’s a right wing jerk (in your opinion), the other’s a left wing jerk (in my opinion). The dominant liberal media, with their superior-to-bloggers editing and fact-checking (HT: Tom Brokaw) hasn’t run with invented and easily rebuked quotes attributed to Olbermann.

I wonder why?

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:34 am

Rush Limbaugh was removed from Monday Night Football. Keith Olbermann is still working pro football.

One’s a right wing jerk (in your opinion), the other’s a left wing jerk (in my opinion). The dominant liberal media, with their superior-to-bloggers editing and fact-checking (HT: Tom Brokaw) hasn’t run with invented and easily rebuked quotes attributed to Olbermann.

I wonder why?

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:34 am

Rush Limbaugh was removed from Monday Night Football. Keith Olbermann is still working pro football.

One’s a right wing jerk (in your opinion), the other’s a left wing jerk (in my opinion). The dominant liberal media, with their superior-to-bloggers editing and fact-checking (HT: Tom Brokaw) hasn’t run with invented and easily rebuked quotes attributed to Olbermann.

I wonder why?

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Who is reading race into things? You’re the one that brought racism up, Methinks, not me.

In the spirit of continuing my effort to disabuse you of the notion that everything in the world is not about YOU, Danny…..I said “liberals”. I never accused YOU personally of calling anyone a racist in this discussion.

I don’t know much about the NFL at all. However, the players are mostly black and the liberals love keeping blacks in their place. If my information is correct, it’s the head of the players’ union – DeMaurice – who raised the objection.

But, again – don’t really know much about the NFL. I prefer watching soccer (which, I of course, never get to do). Whether Rush reaps what he sows or not, I don’t know. I suppose that’s a matter of opinion.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:42 am

The NFLPA leader has has ties to the Obama administration, and it’s very much in his political interest to demonize Limbaugh.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:42 am

The NFLPA leader has has ties to the Obama administration, and it’s very much in his political interest to demonize Limbaugh.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:42 am

The NFLPA leader has has ties to the Obama administration, and it’s very much in his political interest to demonize Limbaugh.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:42 am

The NFLPA leader has has ties to the Obama administration, and it’s very much in his political interest to demonize Limbaugh.

Justin P October 22, 2009 at 3:19 am

I agree for the most part, but I think most socialist/liberalDemocrats equate conservative with bigot anyway. So they are just part and parcel.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:25 am

Not just your opinion – I agree Olbermann can be a jerk. I’m not sure the frequency is quite the same. Fox has no trouble quoting Olbermann when he’s gone nuts, and people just don’t get up in arms about him in the same way – I think that’s largely because Olbermann directs is fury at Bush and Fox. Obviously he doesn’t always – sometimes he targets the general public and that’s obnoxious. But does he target the general public as regularly as Rush does? Maybe – I haven’t heard a lot of great examples… which isn’t to say there aren’t websites on Olbermann that I haven’t checked. They usually complain about things he’s said about Fox or Rush or Bush.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:25 am

Not just your opinion – I agree Olbermann can be a jerk. I’m not sure the frequency is quite the same. Fox has no trouble quoting Olbermann when he’s gone nuts, and people just don’t get up in arms about him in the same way – I think that’s largely because Olbermann directs is fury at Bush and Fox. Obviously he doesn’t always – sometimes he targets the general public and that’s obnoxious. But does he target the general public as regularly as Rush does? Maybe – I haven’t heard a lot of great examples… which isn’t to say there aren’t websites on Olbermann that I haven’t checked. They usually complain about things he’s said about Fox or Rush or Bush.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:25 am

Not just your opinion – I agree Olbermann can be a jerk. I’m not sure the frequency is quite the same. Fox has no trouble quoting Olbermann when he’s gone nuts, and people just don’t get up in arms about him in the same way – I think that’s largely because Olbermann directs is fury at Bush and Fox. Obviously he doesn’t always – sometimes he targets the general public and that’s obnoxious. But does he target the general public as regularly as Rush does? Maybe – I haven’t heard a lot of great examples… which isn’t to say there aren’t websites on Olbermann that I haven’t checked. They usually complain about things he’s said about Fox or Rush or Bush.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 10:25 am

Not just your opinion – I agree Olbermann can be a jerk. I’m not sure the frequency is quite the same. Fox has no trouble quoting Olbermann when he’s gone nuts, and people just don’t get up in arms about him in the same way – I think that’s largely because Olbermann directs is fury at Bush and Fox. Obviously he doesn’t always – sometimes he targets the general public and that’s obnoxious. But does he target the general public as regularly as Rush does? Maybe – I haven’t heard a lot of great examples… which isn’t to say there aren’t websites on Olbermann that I haven’t checked. They usually complain about things he’s said about Fox or Rush or Bush.

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 2:05 pm

to disabuse you of the notion that everything in the world is not about you…

Well, this is what bad editing will get you! The opposite of what you meant. It’s NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, DANNY!! IT’S NOT!

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 2:08 pm

I can’t even agree with you anymore! When I do you just say I’m accusing you of something else!

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 2:08 pm

RE: “In the spirit of continuing my effort to disabuse you of the notion that everything in the world is not about YOU, Danny…..I said “liberals”. I never accused YOU personally of calling anyone a racist in this discussion.”

And in the spirit of helping you realize that not everything is a fight, I want to remind you that I was saying that I agree with you that Rush isn’t a racist – I never once claimed you called me a racist!!!! So don’t get defensive just because I say I agree with you on whether Rush is a racist or not!

My point was simply that you were the first one on this thread that mentioned the issue of racism – not Don, and not me.

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 2:07 pm

There’s no doubt in my mind that you’ve never thought. Full stop.

mesaeconoguy October 22, 2009 at 1:42 am

I reiterate, your truculent stupidity remains unmatched.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 2:11 pm

And thank goodness no one ever made the claim that it was.

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 3:45 pm

your behaviour implies it. The fact that you don’t understand that sheds a little light on why when liberals write everything to disparage personal responsibility except “I hate personal responsibility”, you deny they do.

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 3:46 pm

LOL.

Well, thank you for proclaiming that I was the first to mention it. That certainly is a worthwhile observation.

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 3:46 pm

that’s because you’re confused.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Do I imply or you infer?

You need to follow your own advice – not everything is about me.

Methinks October 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm

aren’t all reputations due to lies, fabrications and truth?

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 3:50 pm

That’s what I’ve always thought. I guess I’m just curious about the source of your observation.

Anonymous October 21, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Well said.

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 9:49 pm

You’re correct, I do not live in the world of duplicity as do you.

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 10:51 pm

I can see from the fact that you only responded to my first sentence that you realized you jumped the gun on the substance of the question you were berating me over.

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 10:53 pm

Duplicitous Kuehn,Never fear being shot with an arrow or stabbed with a knife, you have an incredible ability to miss the point.

Anonymous October 22, 2009 at 11:05 pm

It’s uncanny how you have this way of saying exactly what I’m think about your responses.

Do you ever go back and read your posts? You’re really the libertarian muirgeo. Most of it is ravings and hyperbole, mixed in with insults of fellow commenters and broad denunciations of whole classes of people in society. You think your crowning achievement is calling me immature. I think I’ve proven myself immeasurably more mature than you, but even if I’ve failed in that at least I have the opportunity for growth. You’re just a bitter old man that cares more about denigrating others than making a substantive point.

Anonymous October 23, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Here is the real deal, sonny. This is one of the dots you need to recognize in order to “connect the dots”.

#1. Unlike yourself, I have never been told by the hosts of this blog to shut up for awhile.

#2. Neither of the hosts have ever directly told me that my comments were incoherent and reveal a lack of cognitive recognition of points.

#3. Neither of the hosts have ever directly told me that my comments were most often just plain boring.

#4. Neither host has ever questioned my ability to “see the point” in their posts and note that I barge ahead with irrelevant disagreements.

All of these, #1 thru #4, attest to the immaturity of which I accuse you, as not once have those direct comments made to you by the hosts have caused you to even stutter step, or seem to have a moment’s introspection on your conduct.

Again I am no libertarian, libertarians in general are to willing to embrace more government than I am.

Last, I wipe my rhetorical ass with such as muirduck, such as he exist only to be made fun of, just like the town drunk or the village idiot who insist on interrupting the conversations of their betters, and I am rough edged enough to say so.

I will say one thing for muirduck in opposition to you. At least he does not try to hide his stupidity, he lets it hang out regularly. You on the other hand think you are cute and clever with your disingenuous and duplicitous comments, when it is obvious from the putdowns you get that no one is buying your act.

Anonymous October 23, 2009 at 6:57 pm

RE: “#1. Unlike yourself, I have never been told by the hosts of this blog to shut up for awhile.”

You fawn over the hosts – what do you expect. A great accomplishment, congratulations.

And none of your points show any inkling of a recognition that Don and Russ are quite capable of being wrong or petty themselves.

RE: “when it is obvious from the putdowns you get that no one is buying your act.”

The only people that put me down like that are the people that I’ve honestly never found convincing myself and that rely more on insult than arguing. There are quite a few people on here who I disagree with but who have expressed appreciation with the way I make my case on here. And Russ has emailed me personally requesting that I don’t stop commenting despite the rancor that goes on here on occassion.

Anonymous October 23, 2009 at 10:17 pm

Thanks Justin.

Anonymous October 24, 2009 at 1:09 am

What do you think, brotio? Maybe it really was him on that other blog.

Just as clueless.

Anonymous October 24, 2009 at 5:21 am

Sure looks like it!

Previous post:

Next post: