• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

David Limbaugh

I would also like to point out that my concern about civility is more about personal communication between people than about people who are external to the situation.

I don't like that anyone calls a politician a slimeball, or whatever. But my beef is more about direct discussions between people here.. or between people anywhere. When they start insulting each other. When they openly disdain the person they are conversing with.

I will admit that the teabagging comments were directed at outside people. But not in their entirety. I strongly believe that some poeple were using them as a means of getting a rise out of people in this forum. It seems clear to me that was true of at least one person. Just about outright trolling. Even when people complained about it as insulting, it just kept coming back again and again.

I felt it necessary to qualify that here, because I can sense someone saying something about it. It was directed initially at outside people. But it was being used as a tool in here as well. But the teabagging thing is not what set me off in this thread, and we don't need to keep rehashing that. I'm trying to speak to the way people treat each other personally, here or anywhere.

I've tried to get into this in the past in some religous discussions here. And I've had people defend to me that some things are truly worthy only of ridicule, or even loathing and disgust. I disagree with that assessment, but that is their right.

But my experience, all throughout life, is that ridicule and insults actually do very little to actually further any debate. If anything it has the opposite effect. It hardens the person on the receiving end. It get's their hackles up. It makes them more beligerant in return.

I just hate to see that, so often, people's first response to things is insult and derision. I'll even agree that I could be wrong, and maybe it can be warranted at times. But it seems to me it's done around here at the drop of a hat for some people, on perfectly reasonable points of view.

THAT'S my beef here. That people are too uncivil with each other. I don't feel that calling a public figure a name is the same thing. It's still wrong, but it's not what I'm getting at. I am trying to find a way to have left and right actually treat each other with respectful debate, if that is at all possible.

I am not perfect. I may not be perfect at what I'm trying to do, and I may not make perfect arguments. But I'm open to learn and adjust. And I'm trying to do something good, and doing the best I can at it. I wish more would try to meet me halfway here. Instead it seems that some let their personal dislike of me guide them to put me in a bad light, discredit me, and so forth.

I've apologized profusely for the hostile way I entered these forums. And I've tried to be entirely different since then. I don't see why anyone should reasonably hold a grudge.
 
Last edited:
Whiplash said:
ETA: Oh, and I forgot, I should have thanked your for what you said about seeing that I had made efforts to be more polite or reasonable, etc. I appreciated that very much.
Click to expand...
Shhh, damnit. I don't want to have to fight off the tar-and-feathers crowd. :)
 
Whiplash said:
Umm, what? Evidence please? I've complained about the intellectual dishonesty around here for months. I suppose you mean the intellectual dishonesty of those on the right? There is no intellectual dishonesty on the left? WTF are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Well, I have seen you complain about so-called "immaturity", I have seen you whine and being outraged at so-called vulgarity, but I have rarely (if ever) seen you be outraged at intellectual dishonesty in general. I, for one, am far more outraged by that kind of behaviour than at someone's use of a bit of name-calling. I guess I have thick skin. *shrugs*

I couldn't disagree more. He's wrong to make those statements, for sure. But comparing his hyperbole about terrorism with derrisevly insulting people about having someones nut suck dropped in their mouth isn't even on the same page, let alone the same chapter.
Click to expand...
Can't agree at all. By this so-called "hyperbole" (for BAC, it wasn't hyperbole, by the way - if you'd read the thread you'd see he was using that as a very serious argument), BAC was basically calling all his opponents as morally bankrupt supporters or mass-murders. And he was saying that completely earnestly.
Now, on the other hand, calling someone a tea-bagger is just obvious mockery. How is that offensive, unless you're just a crybaby? "Moooom, Billy called me mean things! Waaah!"
If someone called me a teabagger, I'd either laugh at them or roll my eyes and move on, or completely ignore them -- I certainly wouldn't get worked up about something so trivial. If someone distorted my point of view to earnestly portray me as a morally bankrupt mass-murder apologist, I'd find that far more offensive and would probably try to argue back, because unlike an insult in a void, it's actually an argument. Of course, it's such a stupid one that you could say it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, and after seeing BAC's attitude I'll be inclined to agree, but only after it's too late. :newlol

Your post just goes to show me that some of you are not going to be fair, ever. I have, as I said, bent over backwards here to be reasonable and polite. And yet some of you seriously dislike me. Even Upchruch still turns around and says he's not seen anything good from me.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying anything about your politeness. They are criticizing your martyr syndrome and your bias and hypocrisy in denouncing so-called incivility on one side only.
Perhaps if, once in a while, you'd do something else than tell everyone just how outraged you are at so-and-so's use of a word you disapprove of, people wouldn't dislike you so much. In other words, nobody likes a whiner. :)

You lot spend alot of time attacking me personally to discredit me. Why? What did I ever do to you? Is it simply because I'm conservative?
Click to expand...
See, you're doing it again! :newlol "Waah! You're attacking me because I'm a conservative!"
For what it's worth, I couldn't care less about your politics - I'm not a liberal or a left-winger myself anyway (nor am I even American so I can't identify with that stupid left vs right dichotomy at all). I just find your self-martyring to be laughable. Grow some thicker skin, will you? Not everyone is out to get you.
 
Back to the OP:

Limbaugh's appeal is that he seems to validate certain people's prejudices, and he plays to their fears. While there are times when I agree with him, I find myself not wanting to because people like him take those moments of assent and turn them into a blanket assertion of their entire agenda.

I would agree: We need to get better control over our nation's spending.

I disagree: Elimination of all social benefits in one fell swoop is a very bad idea.

I agree: Gun control as presently constituted does not work.

I disagree: We need to insist on people locking up their weapons when they are not in use, and we need to keep firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

These are only two. But I think you get my drift. My belief is that on gay rights, he's wrong. Considering his own brother has been married four times at least, how does he claim that gay marriage makes a mockery of marriage in general? Rush's behavior did a far better job of that than any relationship that, say, Rock Hudson or Liberace had with anyone. (I used those because those seem to be the "examples" used in the circles I'm around, and I'm sure you can guess why.)

Part of the problem with "spokesmen," which is the role the Limbaughs seem to be striving for, is that once they assume that role, the tendency is to silence anyone who says anything different, and they begin to trivialize the very issues they claim as their own. That's dangerous ground, and it's not where I want to be.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
So? What the frack do "Hate Crimes" laws have anything to do about a homosexual's desire for social acceptance? It's a non-sequitur.

The way I read this, he's not upset about Hate Crimes statutes so much as he is about homosexuals. If your object is to oppose Hate Crimes laws, why bring up gays at all?
Click to expand...

Well, my father-in-law, a die-hard conservative but not a religious guy, thinks hate crime laws are stupid (he is a lawyer). He thinks a crime is a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. In his opinion, hate crime laws give too much credit to the victim and that all perpetrators of crime are the same and should face the same fate as anyone else who commits the same crime. He doesn't really care about motivation for crimes just that the person committing them gets punished according to the law. Of course, he is fairly bigoted and sees things as being black or white. To him , the world is simple and acknowledging complexity is for sissies.

As for "pushing some agenda" I think where the cons go wring is that they think the "agenda" of gays is to make all kids gay, spread AIDS and have us all be fornicating monkeys. It's complete and utter fear mongering.
 
I'm not anxious to continue to derail this thread, but I have been thinking for the last couple hours while doing some errands, and I have some important thoughts to add.

The thing that sticks most in my craw is the idea that because some tax protesters called themselves "teabaggers" that this somehow absolved any blame from the people who then went on to use it as a derisive insult. "Hey, they called themsleves that first, it's fair game!" and so on.

It occured to me suddenly how I can prove, conclusively, that this idea is insanely out of whack.

What I am going to speak to is things that I have specifically seen with my own eyes. However, as I already can sense the howls of "evidence", I'm going to simply state that I would like everyone to consider the following in a hypothetical manner..

Imagine for a moment, a gay pride parade in New York. We've all see them on TV. Many people involved are very flamboyant and open about it. Imagine someone starting a chant such as "We're queer, we're here, and everyone better get used to it!". Just a few of them. Maybe a few others with signs that say something like "Fag and proud" or "Fagfest 2008" or something like that.

Imagine now the next day, Limbaugh goes on the air and proclaims "Fagfest" a complete success, and talks about thousands of queers overrunning the city. And justifies it based on the fact that they were all using the terms to describe themselves, so he's doing nothing wrong.

Hypothetical two: Million man march on Washington. Some misguided (and very few) people have signs with things like "Gangbanger and proud!" or "Black Power!" or "Ni**er Power!".

Imagine, the next day, as Hannity talks about hundereds of thousands of Ni##ers swarming over Washington. And he justifies it the same way.

Obviously these would be completely unacceptable. And I sincerely hope that none will reject the idea of any of these types of signs of chants. I am betting that most everyone has seen some over the top types who can't help but be confrontational or shocking in this manner. There are idiots in every single walk of life, regardless of group size. There are always going to be a few idiots who make the rest look bad. And I think everyone realizes that the actions of those few do not reflect the feelings and morality of the majority involved.

Now hold on, I can already sense an incoming argument. "But those are terms that are derogatory based against a persons ethnicity or sexual orientation, which they have no control over". TRUE ENOUGH. But suggesting that is to nitpick what I'm saying. There is a definate range of offensiveness here across all the comments mentioned. The racial and sexual ones would be waaaay more derogatory and insulting, I agree. But all three are insulting to varying degrees, and to gleefully take up those statements and throw them back at everyone involved, based on the actions of a small number of fools would be insulting and imature, and intellectually dishonest.

Moreso with some of the comments than others, but in all cases, it's wrong to throw it back at them. Does anyone see my point here?

Again, I'm not perfect. I've made mistakes. I'll continue to make mistakes. But I'm doing my best to argue my points specifically and peacefully. I'd really like to see the comments on these thoughts. I think it shows that the teabagging comments were rude, childish, and indefensible, period.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

I know I go a bit long folks, I often joke to myself about how if brevity is the soul of wit, then I am witless. I find it hard to get my thoughts across more succintly. And I compulsively edit.

I sincerely hope those who are intested take the time to read fully when responding. I'm sure these types of posts from me generate an instant "tl;dr" for many people.
 
Last edited:
Whiplash said:
The thing that sticks most in my craw is the idea that because some tax protesters called themselves "teabaggers" that this somehow absolved any blame from the people who then went on to use it as a derisive insult. "Hey, they called themsleves that first, it's fair game!" and so on.
Click to expand...
I get your point but you don't do yourself a favor by using the teabag parties as one of your examples. It is NOT that "some" people used that name, it was partly their official name: "Taxed Enough Alread": TEA. And the promoters used that phrase extensively. Finally, few of the signs I saw explicitly used the word "teabagger" but rather contained invective against Obama, Democrats, and even illegal immigration.

Thus, use of the phrase teabaggers by the opposition in this case seems justified to me.
 
SezMe said:
I get your point but you don't do yourself a favor by using the teabag parties as one of your examples. It is NOT that "some" people used that name, it was partly their official name: "Taxed Enough Alread": TEA. And the promoters used that phrase extensively. Finally, few of the signs I saw explicitly used the word "teabagger" but rather contained invective against Obama, Democrats, and even illegal immigration.

Thus, use of the phrase teabaggers by the opposition in this case seems justified to me.
Click to expand...



Believe me, if I had been at any of those things, and seen someone with a teabagger sign, I'd have gotten up to them and given them major grief. I wish these idiots hadn't done it. I really do. They were fools.

But I still think that for anyone to turn around and use it as an insult was being childish and not really advancing anything. We don't talk about the issues anymore. There was hardly any debate about what is fair taxation (not here, I mean in general). It was just ridicule.
 
Last edited:
Whiplash said:
Believe me, if I had been at any of those things, and seen someone with a teabagger sign, I'd have gotten up to them and given them major grief. I wish these idiots hadn't done it. I really do. They were fools.

But I still think that for anyone to turn around and use it as an insult was being childish and not really advancing anything. We don't talk about the issues anymore. There was hardly any debate about what is fair taxation (not here, I mean in general). It was just ridicule.
Click to expand...

As a fiscal and economic conservative one might think that I and people like me would have been the people most enthused about this teabagger thing. I wasn't and I suspect many of my fellow small government types weren't either. It had the look and feel of partisan BS from the start and then it morphed into crazy land that even the promoters probably were a bit dismayed about.

If Fox had the slightest degree of intellectual honesty when it came to promoting something like this it would have done it when Bush was spending 5.5 trillion dollars that the country didn't have. It didn't do it then because Fox is a money making outfit that makes money by pandering to the partisan and predominately social conservative base of the Republican Party and speaking the truth about the absurd fiscal irresponsibility of George Bush didn't fit with that agenda.

So when Fox goes on some sort of hypocritical fiscal responsibility rant, I think there is every reason for somebody that believes in small government ideas and fiscal responsibility to completely disassociate themselves from this kind of nonsense.

And if ridicule isn't justified for this non-sense at least it is reasonable to dismiss it as just Fox News manipulation of its viewing base and not in any way a legitimate movement.
 
davefoc said:
As a fiscal and economic conservative one might think that I and people like me would have been the people most enthused about this teabagger thing. I wasn't and I suspect many of my fellow small government types weren't either. It had the look and feel of partisan BS from the start and then it morphed into crazy land that even the promoters probably were a bit dismayed about.

If Fox had the slightest degree of intellectual honesty when it came to promoting something like this it would have done it when Bush was spending 5.5 trillion dollars that the country didn't have. It didn't do it then because Fox is a money making outfit that makes money by pandering to the partisan and predominately social conservative base of the Republican Party and speaking the truth about the absurd fiscal irresponsibility of George Bush didn't fit with that agenda.

So when Fox goes on some sort of hypocritical fiscal responsibility rant, I think there is every reason for somebody that believes in small government ideas and fiscal responsibility to completely disassociate themselves from this kind of nonsense.

And if ridicule isn't justified for this non-sense at least it is reasonable to dismiss it as just Fox News manipulation of its viewing base and not in any way a legitimate movement.
Click to expand...


Ok then, well said Dave. I will let go of the teabag thing. It's over now anyhow. Maybe there is room for movement on my thoughts on the issue. I think you made some good points. I was a bit embarrassed by the whole tax protests too. I wasn't at any of them, and didn't care to support them. I just took up for them, defensively, when I felt they were being unfairly attacked.

I hear where you are coming from on Bush's spending. However, I was not one who liked it. I wasn't here until very late in his presidency, so I can't prove that. But many people I was conversing with via usenet and other places at the time felt that Bush was not a true conservative at all, and that spending was out of control still. I remember specifically that people were raising that charge to us.. that we railed against Clinton's spending, and weren't upset about Bush's. But I was upset. I had hoped that Bush was going to be a much different type of president. But I still supported him, he was my president, just as Obama is my president now.

But this is my biggest concern, above the civility issues.. Spending. I can see how the stimulus bill will, in the short run, do some good. My concern is when the out of control spending that has gone on for at least 25 years, from both parties, is going to leave us in a huge and devestating financial crisis. We can't keep it up. We really need to find a way to trim the fat wherever we can. I can't see how this is sustainable, especially with the baby boomers hitting social security in their masses soon.

But still, good points, and I'll just give up on the teabag thing.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
As a fiscal and economic conservative one might think that I and people like me would have been the people most enthused about this teabagger thing. I wasn't and I suspect many of my fellow small government types weren't either. It had the look and feel of partisan BS from the start and then it morphed into crazy land that even the promoters probably were a bit dismayed about.
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom