Rush Limbaugh blames volcano on Healthcare legislation

[ParanoiA]

I would add that money bags come from the leveraging of the worker. People are fond of saying that companies don't pay taxes, people do. Well, money bags don't print money, they receive it from the value added work of others.

 

So if the wealthy are not taxed appropriately, they are obligated to give to charity, no need to thank them. Obviously, some will do more than others and some may go beyond the norm. This can be recognized, but should not be confused with real sacrifice, IMO.

 

Well we can argue about the classical arrangement of business owner/worker and who is doing for who, but what seems to miss the point is this constant appraisal of the giver. Why do we care if they've "sacrificed" or not? Why does that matter...at all?

 

I'm bothered by this focused attention on the donor and concern for their motivations - when it's the social need they're augmenting that deserves all of our attention. It's odd how this "sacrifice" jab just seems so necessary to include.

[Pangloss]

And Jimmy Carter who actually swings a hammer (or at least did at one time) to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. That man is repeatedly persecuted for his politics and his presidency, but there's no disputing his character.

 

Well said!

[padren]

And Jimmy Carter who actually swings a hammer (or at least did at one time) to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. That man is repeatedly persecuted for his politics and his presidency, but there's no disputing his character.

 

I agree with you about his political persecution (if that's the right word) but I always thought that was an issue questioning his competency and decisiveness, not his character or intentions. I could be entirely wrong - I don't know much about him in detail.

 

That said, if he was known for the kind of statements and rhetoric that Rush is (political leanings aside) do you think his character would still be above dispute, regardless of how many houses he helped build? It may confuse people or seem paradoxical, but I think it would be disputed.

[bascule]

I agree with you about his political persecution (if that's the right word) but I always thought that was an issue questioning his competency and decisiveness, not his character or intentions. I could be entirely wrong - I don't know much about him in detail.

 

I think many see the Carter and Reagan years through rose colored glasses. I'm sure there are many people out protesting how huge the deficit is under Obama while remembering Ronald Reagan as a hero.

 

In the age of 9/11, the Iran Contra affair seems almost tawdry.

[john5746]

I'm bothered by this focused attention on the donor and concern for their motivations - when it's the social need they're augmenting that deserves all of our attention. It's odd how this "sacrifice" jab just seems so necessary to include.

 

A million dollars from Bill Gates is the same as a million dollars from a group of 5th graders who raised it working a lemonade stand for 5 years. It does basically the same good. But when trying to make a character judgement based on this, I think you can see the difference. Both did good and should be thanked, but one is much more impressive. A for effort does apply sometimes, at least for me.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That said, if he was known for the kind of statements and rhetoric that Rush is (political leanings aside) do you think his character would still be above dispute, regardless of how many houses he helped build? It may confuse people or seem paradoxical, but I think it would be disputed.

 

Actually, Carter has taken a hit due to his anti-Israel stance and general nose-butting of late. Many would love for him to just bang nails and stay away from politics.

[ParanoiA]

I agree with you about his political persecution (if that's the right word) but I always thought that was an issue questioning his competency and decisiveness, not his character or intentions. I could be entirely wrong - I don't know much about him in detail.

 

 

No, I don't think you're wrong at all. I've never heard anyone really attack his character either, other than through his position maybe on Israel and the palestinians.

 

I just brought it up because it's an example of how a man can be measured with some balance between his political personality and his personal actions and contributions to the world.

 

That said, if he was known for the kind of statements and rhetoric that Rush is (political leanings aside) do you think his character would still be above dispute, regardless of how many houses he helped build? It may confuse people or seem paradoxical, but I think it would be disputed.

 

I'm not sure. Political leanings can't be put aside to answer that question, because they have a lot to do with it.

 

Take the pluralized environment we currently live in. Right now it's trendy to promote bipartisanship and cooperation. If you don't compliment that trend, as a political commentator, then you're divisive, hateful, objectionist...blah blah blah - and thus your character can be "disputed", such as Rush.

 

But if Rush got on the radio and talked about how we all need to get along and work together and compromise to solve America's tough issues and problems, and offered nothing more than "pretty logic" then his character would never be in question. He would be a "swell guy". Yet, that kind of Rush does nothing for the world, in terms of his commentary. Just fluff and snow.

 

Rush contributes socially, more than politically, in my opinion. This is where I find value in him. One of my favorites is his refusal to cave in to the "victim advocate". And he's been assailed so many times for this. It's a chickenshit technique to trot victims out in the political arena, taking a particular side, and then acting all shocked and offended when Rush takes them on for being "wrong". As if these victims can't be expected to be taken to task for their position - like we're all supposed to just shut up and let them talk without countering them - or if we do, we have to walk on eggshells beginning every sentence with some spill about how sorry we are that they're a victim.

 

Rush takes the heat for that. Globally. And I thank him. I appreciate that someone out there is willing to stand up to these traditional, offensive political techniques.

 

I don't agree with how Rush is characterized generally (like hateful), and I challenge some of the supposed negatives, like "divisive", as being negative. Rush is wrong on so much of what he believes, that appeals to false charges aren't really necessary. Just like Obama is plenty wrong without making believe he's a muslim terrorist without a birth certificate. We just don't need that.

[jryan]

And Jimmy Carter who actually swings a hammer (or at least did at one time) to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. That man is repeatedly persecuted for his politics and his presidency, but there's no disputing his character..

 

Well, it is possible to separate the two, you know. When he flies to Palestine and declares an Israeli Apartheid the image of him building homes doesn't seem quite so redeeming to many.