Limbaugh Connects Creationism With AGW Denial

Media • Views: 4,281

For a long time, Rush Limbaugh avoided the topic of creationism. But today, for the second time in a year, Limbaugh openly professed his creationist beliefs.

And even more interestingly, Limbaugh tied those beliefs to his denial of global warming. Limbaugh’s “philosophy,” if you can call it that, is that since God created the planet Earth, he simply would not allow mankind to have the ability to destroy it through environmental damage.

Yes, that’s what he said. I’ve often noted that the tactics of creationists and global warming deniers have many things in common, but today Limbaugh made the connection quite explicitly. His belief in creationism is behind his refusal to accept the evidence of global warming.

The audio:

mediamatters.org

Jump to bottom

255 comments
1 Kragar  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:57:47am

Obviously God is making the world hotter to get rid of us sinners. He’ll just rapture away anyone he feels like saving.

//

2 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 11:58:08am

The main question I have is, if there was a god, why wouldn’t he let us?

If he’s there, he lets us murder each other, commit genocide, poison rivers, pass plagues to each other, torture and kidnap each other, nuke each other.

Does Rush not believe in free will or something?

3 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:01:09pm

A very simple point from a theological view.

If you were to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, God, could make a miracle and make the bullet disappear. However, no one should ever bank on that.

4 UncleMonkey  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:03:15pm

God won’t allow humans to destroy the planet with global climate change, yet he allows earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, periods of warming, long-lasting ice ages that push species to the verge of extinction, super volcanoes that can end life as we know it, massive asteroids that could render this planet uninhabitable, mass stockpiles of nuclear weapons that could destroy the planet a thousand times over, black holes that rotate through galaxies, massive solar flares…

Care to comment, Mr. Limbaugh?

5 Soap_Man  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:03:25pm

Doesn’t the bible say we should be good shepherds of the Earth? (or something like that..)

6 fizzlogic  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:03:38pm

I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Rush make the same argument against AGW years ago when I used to be a huge Rush fan.

7 lawhawk  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:04:07pm

re: #2 Obdicut

Rush? Free Will? Trees?

Hmmm… oh wait. Wrong Rush.

Seriously though, very good point - he’s seeming to think that everything is predetermined and that the Big Guy upstairs will sort things out for us. As opposed to a G-d who lets us choose our own path and with which we have to live with the consequences.

Also, what does this say about the public education system in the US where critical thinking is sorely lacking and that empirical evidence is simply ignored on matters of evolution, the age of the planet, and even global warming.

8 brennant  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:04:12pm

It is just an easy way to say no and have an argument that you cannot win. No amount of truth, evidence, etc is going to change that.

Instead of having a real discussion on Cap and Trade, and finding appropriate solutions, it is much easier to tie creationism and AGW… Totally lame.

9 Gus  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:04:39pm

So according to Rush Limbaugh “if the creator done it, it’s got to be good for you.” Let’s say there was a creator being. What would he say about “him” “creating” droughts, famine, diseases, earthquakes, tornadoes, and so on?

Primitive thinking at work.

10 abolitionist  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:04:53pm

From NYT, May 20, 2009: Let’s Not Go Ape Over Ida

If the meaning of Ida is yet to become clear, all the talk about the Missing Link has solved at least one scientific mystery. Is Rush Limbaugh a creationist?

“The question has come up several times, in our threads related to evolution,” writes Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. “I searched for definitive statements because I was curious where he stood, but was never able to really pin it down.

“Well, today he pretty much settled the matter, with a rant about the ‘missing link’ fossil announced by an international team of scientists; yep, he’s a creationist.”

11 middy  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:05:47pm

Didn’t He already try and wipe us all out with a Flood?

12 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:05:48pm

Now as to Rush…

The real dangerous hidden message here is that if you believe in God, you must not believe in AGW.

He is making the AGW debate into a religious one. The Christian Right will eat this up. It will be precisely what they do with evolution. Now will we hear how God said there is no AGW.

Rush has once again struck a terrible and dangerous blow.

The big difference though is that not believing in evolution doesn’t get people killed nearly as much as refusing to take action on AGW.

Unless there is a concerted effort to do so, which will not happen without many more Americans telling the government that they get it, then no serious action will be taken in time. The consequences of that are catastrophic. Billions die. That is not hyperbole. That is not over the top.

If you think that is alarming, good. that is sane. Sane people should be alarmed. The clear science is telling us very alarming things.

Now Rush has once again unified a dangerous moronic convergence.

13 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:06:41pm

Sixty years ago yesterday the first live televised Nuclear explosion was broadcast. We have the means to destroy the planet if we want to. Rush’s hypothesis is invalid.

14 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:06:55pm

re: #3 LudwigVanQuixote

A very simple point from a theological view.

If you were to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, God, could make a miracle and make the bullet disappear. However, no one should ever bank on that.

“God, an idiot down there has a gun up to his head. he thinks that if he pulls the trigger, you’re going to miraculously stop the bullet.”

“Sucks to be him. I don’t do interventions on command. Never have!”

“God, if he pulls the trigger, he’ll be here in ten minutes.”

“Why didn’t you say so? Hey, you! Stop that right now!”

15 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:07:04pm

re: #9 Gus 802

So according to Rush Limbaugh “if the creator done it, it’s got to be good for you.” Let’s say there was a creator being. What would he say about “him” “creating” droughts, famine, diseases, earthquakes, tornadoes, and so on?

Primitive thinking at work.

Yeah that’s right, because G-d didn’t make plague or small pox or earth-quakes…

16 darthstar  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:07:29pm

Limbaugh’s one methane making machine.

17 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:07:53pm

Why is it that the people who demonstrably don’t know how to read Biblical text are always the ones who claim to know exactly what the deity is thinking?

18 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:08:53pm

re: #5 Soap_Man

Doesn’t the bible say we should be good shepherds of the Earth? (or something like that..)

thank you

19 Kragar  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:09:19pm

2 quotes

“The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions. A thing which is always subject to the direction of another is somewhat of a dead thing.”

and

“Beware of the person of one book.”

20 Sinistershade  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:09:34pm

I’m always annoyed that when a “god” is brought up, the speaker never clarifies whether he or she is speaking of Zeus, Odin, Kali, Jupiter, Hera … and it almost always turns out to be that frightfully dull YHWH/Allah.

21 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:09:38pm

“good idea, Oh Lord”
“of COURSE it’s a good idea!”

22 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:09:58pm

re: #9 Gus 802

So according to Rush Limbaugh “if the creator done it, it’s got to be good for you.”

*eyeroll* OK, Rush, I was born with half a heart. How is that good for me?

23 Gus  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:09:58pm

re: #15 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah that’s right, because G-d didn’t make plague or small pox or earth-quakes…

Should probably not bring up mutated forms to old Rush-bag.

24 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:10:08pm

re: #17 Bob Levin

Why is it that the people who demonstrably don’t know how to read Biblical text are always the ones who claim to know exactly what the deity is thinking?

Because of the arrogance involved. They missed the bit’s on not presuming about God.

Ironically, the entire book of Job would counter Rush’s nonsense quite completely. Too bad he never read that part.

25 fizzlogic  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:10:12pm

re: #15 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, but those hit by such had it coming. It’s God’s will….or something.

26 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:10:54pm

re: #17 Bob Levin

Why is it that the people who demonstrably don’t know how to read Biblical text are always the ones who claim to know exactly what the deity is thinking?

“Do as I say, not as He did.”

27 Gus  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:11:06pm

re: #22 SteveC

*eyeroll* OK, Rush, I was born with half a heart. How is that good for me?

I don’t think it’s supposed to make sense. Rush that is.

28 Soap_Man  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:11:13pm

re: #17 Bob Levin

Why is it that the people who demonstrably don’t know how to read Biblical text are always the ones who claim to know exactly what the deity is thinking?

I’m not very religious, I won’t say that I think there is or isn’t a god. But if there is, any human assuming we know what He/She/It is thinking is about as absurd as an ant knowing what a human is thinking.

29 UncleMonkey  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:11:39pm

re: #5 Soap_Man

Doesn’t the bible say we should be good shepherds of the Earth? (or something like that..)

Maybe somewhere towards the back…

30 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:12:03pm

re: #24 LudwigVanQuixote

Even if he read it he wouldn’t understand it. If a person doesn’t know how to read text, reading more of it ain’t of much help.

31 reine.de.tout  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:12:07pm

re: #9 Gus 802

So according to Rush Limbaugh “if the creator done it, it’s got to be good for you.” Let’s say there was a creator being. What would he say about “him” “creating” droughts, famine, diseases, earthquakes, tornadoes, and so on?

Primitive thinking at work.

I always figure God is the big-picture guy; he leaves the details up to us.

32 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:12:47pm

It’s the last hurrah of the holy horde, the hard core fundies are all dieing off for the most part over the next twenty years. I’ve grown resigned to their last gasp death grip on my party for awhile.

33 Kragar  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:13:34pm

re: #20 Sinistershade

I’m always annoyed that when a “god” is brought up, the speaker never clarifies whether he or she is speaking of Zeus, Odin, Kali, Jupiter, Hera … and it almost always turns out to be that frightfully dull YHWH/Allah.

We need a God with some style to make some announcements every once in a while, or at least a better publicist.

“Yeah, God, its Leo. About your act…you really think a burning bush is gonna be much of a draw nowadays?”

34 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:13:42pm

re: #12 LudwigVanQuixote

Now as to Rush…

The real dangerous hidden message here is that if you believe in God, you must not believe in AGW.

There is nothing new in this. Falwell used to say it all the time, even though he was provably wrong since his words were “not by one degree”, and all those who think like him were saying Amen.

Rush is either as stupid as he often sounds, or is simply following the footsteps of many pandering politicians.

35 Gus  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:13:50pm

re: #31 reine.de.tout

I always figure God is the big-picture guy; he leaves the details up to us.

If I were to say what the details were I would call it adaptation (cultural evolution), science, math, technology, etc. As opposed to sitting around and engaging in wishful thinking.

36 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:15:18pm

re: #27 Gus 802

I don’t think it’s supposed to make sense. Rush that is.

I know. But I love to ask Hard Core Creationists and Anti-scientists that question. Drives ‘em batty.

(Full Disclosure: I lean creationism, but I believe we were given the ability to think and the tools to create, and can use those skills to improve ourselves rather than sitting around waiting on God to do it for us.)

37 keloyd  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:15:32pm

I’ve had Rush on in the car fairly regularly since 1990. This is hard to prove, but there’s no way a younger, less mentally/pharmaceutically clouded Rush (or his persona on the radio, if they’re not the same thing) would have said *or thought* this in the 90s.

Rush and that other one, the “Beuller…” economist guy on Fox News. It is as if when they say “I am a creationist” all they really mean is “I hate lippy teenagers and hippies and seekrit muslim socialists”. I’m wondering to what degree do they really, factually believe the words coming out of their mouths, kind of the way a spoiled child can throw a tantrum and say “I HATE YOU I HATE U…” but that’s not exactly what the words mean.

38 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:16:15pm

re: #28 Soap_Man

Yeah, I mean if Rush’s creationism was in doubt his narcissism was proven long ago.

39 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:16:23pm

re: #31 reine.de.tout

I always figure God is the big-picture guy; he leaves the details up to us.

I like the cut of your jib! Point!

40 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:16:41pm

re: #25 trendsurfer

Yeah, but those hit by such had it coming. It’s God’s will…or something.

I suppose that in the broken down world coming down the pike, I could take some small satisfaction that Rush himself would not be able to fend for himself.

Unfortunately, I would be far more busy with my own survival needs to worry about that.

More to the point, the worst of it will hit some years after he is dead, and I will be a very old man so I can’t even take that satisfaction.

41 reine.de.tout  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:16:54pm

re: #35 Gus 802

If I were to say what the details were I would call it adaptation (cultural evolution), science, math, technology, etc. As opposed to sitting around and engaging in wishful thinking.

Well, yeah.

42 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:17:16pm

re: #34 Naso Tang

There is nothing new in this. Falwell used to say it all the time, even though he was provably wrong since his words were “not by one degree”, and all those who think like him were saying Amen.

Rush is either as stupid as he often sounds, or is simply following the footsteps of many pandering politicians.

In other words, either stupid or evil or both.

43 Sinistershade  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:17:19pm

re: #33 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And where are the affairs and pettiness, vengeance and jealousy of the old gods? Now, those were qualities I could relate to.

44 Gus  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:17:39pm

re: #41 reine.de.tout

Well, yeah.

Right. I was stating the obvious.

45 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:17:43pm

I was eating sushi with my GF the other night. We were enjoying some yellow tail. I remember thinking vey clearly, savor this sushi, there will soon be a time without any yellow tail.

It is really is what is coming. We do something about it now or the world our children inherit will be a horr. No thinking theologian after the horrors of the second world war should ever, ever, presume to state what G-d will or will not allow.

46 Elle Plater  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:17:49pm

In Australia where evolution in general is accepted as a given, where the majority of skeptics are not religious there is no such link

47 jaunte  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:17:50pm

re: #43 Sinistershade

It’s all on talk radio now.

48 Elle Plater  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:19:27pm

And furthermore our Prime Minister and Al Gore are creationists and do believe in Global Warming.

49 Kragar  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:19:46pm

re: #43 Sinistershade

And where are the affairs and pettiness, vengeance and jealousy of the old gods? Now, those were qualities I could relate to.

Been a while since I’ve seen any good ole fashioned booming voice from the heavens followed up with a good smiting.

50 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:20:02pm

re: #42 LudwigVanQuixote

In other words, either stupid or evil or both.

I reserve the word Evil for very special cases approaching biblical themes. Unprincipled will do just fine here.

51 Charles Johnson  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:20:13pm

re: #48 Elle Plater

Al Gore is not a creationist. This is false.

52 reine.de.tout  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:20:23pm

re: #49 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Been a while since I’ve seen any good ole fashioned booming voice from the heavens followed up with a good smiting.

You gottta listen to the radio really late at night. Or very very very early in the morning.

53 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:21:16pm

re: #45 LudwigVanQuixote

I was eating sushi with my GF the other night. We were enjoying some yellow tail. I remember thinking vey clearly, savor this sushi, there will soon be a time without any yellow tail.

It is really is what is coming. We do something about it now or the world our children inherit will be a horr. No thinking theologian after the horrors of the second world war should ever, ever, presume to state what G-d will or will not allow.

I’m not quite as nihilistic as you are Ludwig. We might destroy their environment, but enough people love Yellowtail that we will find a way to keep them in our diet, even if we have to grow them in vats in the midwest or something.

54 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:21:43pm

In an era where we have seen men travel to the moon and back, I find it baffling that people like Rush and Inhofe can hold such counter-intuitive ideas.

55 abolitionist  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:21:53pm

I may get flamed for this, but I thot it worth a mention:

From February 28th, 2008, William F. Buckley Jr. dies

With respect to the creationism/evolution controversy, Buckley will be best remembered for his participation in a 1997 Firing Line debate with the title “Resolved: The Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation,” conducted at Seton Hall University in South Hall, New Jersey, on December 4, 1997, and moderated by Michael Kinsley. Buckley joined Phillip E. Johnson, Michael J. Behe, and David Berlinski in arguing for the affirmative, while Kenneth R. Miller, Michael Ruse, NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott, and Barry Lynn argued for the negative. In his opening statement, Buckley retreated from the debate’s title, saying, “Not everyone on the affirmative side embraces creation. [snip]

To the best of my knowlege, Buckley never advocated parity for creationism & evolution in science classes. I’ll readily admit to not knowing how similar Limbaugh’s position is to that of, say, David Barton.

56 Kragar  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:22:11pm

re: #52 reine.de.tout

You gottta listen to the radio really late at night. Or very very very early in the morning.

He needs to talk to his agent about bookings then

57 Elle Plater  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:22:31pm

In fact it is the religious in Australia, and the ones most likely to believe in creation that have been most vocal about global warming

58 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:23:09pm

re: #43 Sinistershade

And where are the affairs and pettiness, vengeance and jealousy of the old gods? Now, those were qualities I could relate to.

I can see your point about “affairs”, at least since 2000 years ago, but when did the rest disappear?

59 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:24:55pm

re: #57 Elle Plater

In fact it is the religious in Australia, and the ones most likely to believe in creation that have been most vocal about global warming

There’s a decent slice of them here in the States, too, but they aren’t helpful for those who wish to paint with the broadest of brushes…

60 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:25:28pm

re: #51 Charles

Hmm. The other day Charles was too modest to accept dings. Now he does?

61 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:10pm

re: #60 Naso Tang

Hmm. The other day Charles was too modest to accept dings. Now he does?

they don’t count in the tallies, though

62 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:25pm

re: #60 Naso Tang

Hmm. The other day Charles was too modest to accept dings. Now he does?

I don’t think it’s modesty, I think it’s his desire not to dominate top comments by default of being the blog owner. He’s probably put in a fix for that.

63 Elle Plater  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:35pm

re: #51 Charles

Yep sorry I was mistaken.

64 SixDegrees  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:35pm

Off topic, but bad news for the anti-vaxers:

A study from 1998 which linked autism to vaccines has been retracted by the Lancet, where it was originally published, due to questionable research practices:

cnn.com

(Sorry not to provide an actual link, but the link button seems to be busted)

65 RadicalModerate  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:36pm

re: #60 Naso Tang

Hmm. The other day Charles was too modest to accept dings. Now he does?

Dings show up in-thread but aren’t reflected in the “Top Comments” section.

66 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:38pm

re: #57 Elle Plater

Aren’t Creation and the Big Bang synonymous? If not, they should be.

67 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:27:51pm

re: #49 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Been a while since I’ve seen any good ole fashioned booming voice from the heavens followed up with a good smiting.

Here ya go…

On a chosen day Herod put on his royal robes, sat on his throne, and made a speech to the people. “It isn’t a man speaking, but a god!” they shouted.
At once the angel of the Lord struck Herod down, because he did not give honor to God. He was eaten by worms and died. - Acts 12:21-23

68 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:28:42pm

re: #37 keloyd

I listened to his show pretty regularly for three years in the early ’90s, and I don’t recall him making statements like this then either.

69 Charles Johnson  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:28:50pm

re: #60 Naso Tang

Hmm. The other day Charles was too modest to accept dings. Now he does?

General consensus seemed to be that the best way to handle it was to allow dinging my comments, but not have them show up in the Top 10 listing.

70 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:29:55pm

re: #50 Naso Tang

I reserve the word Evil for very special cases approaching biblical themes. Unprincipled will do just fine here.

He is helping to bring about destruction on a biblical scale. He is doing so by spreading lies for no other reason than personal gain. I can accept different religion’s have different takes on where the line to evil has been crossed, but as far as Torah law is concerned, it fits the bill.

71 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:31:05pm

re: #53 Thanos

I’m not quite as nihilistic as you are Ludwig. We might destroy their environment, but enough people love Yellowtail that we will find a way to keep them in our diet, even if we have to grow them in vats in the midwest or something.


You are right, for a time, a very few rich people will still be able to get it. You and I will not.

72 Locker  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:31:47pm

It’s hard to accept that people make statements like Rush actually believe them. They seem to evoke the name of God whenever it’s convenient. Seems that, using Rush’s model, God also created gay folks who want to marry. Why are His plan and His infallibility not enough for you in this instance?

I guess you can just override God whenever you feel like it and then invoke his name to back up your viewpoint when it happens to fall in line with your thinking.

73 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:32:28pm

re: #71 LudwigVanQuixote

You are right, for a time, a very few rich people will still be able to get it. You and I will not.

Now you are sounding very Jeremy Rifkinish - remember the famous wager he lost? I’ll bet you a yellowtail dinner in thirty years if you are willing.

74 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:33:17pm

re: #73 Thanos

Now you are sounding very Jeremy Rifkinish - remember the famous wager he lost? I’ll bet you a yellowtail dinner in thirty years if you are willing.

We will still be able to get it in 30 years. IN 60 though I would be very happy to loose that bet. I pray I will.

75 ShaunP  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:33:20pm

This is not the first time that Rush has made the link that human’s can’t destroy God’s creation. I was going to back up that claim with some links from his site, but every time I go there, my browser crashes.

Instead, here’s a google search that leads to several examples…

google.com

76 DaddyG  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:33:45pm

If you want to have your updings show up in the top ten listing just hit this post. When it shows click on the total and you will see your nic in lights!!

How generous is that of me? //

77 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:34:29pm

re: #75 ShaunP

This is not the first time that Rush has made the link that human’s can’t destroy God’s creation. I was going to back up that claim with some links from his site, but every time I go there, my browser crashes.

Well, I guess that’s just proof that God didn’t create your browser! :)

78 DaddyG  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:34:30pm

Ruch never struck me as particularly religious in the past. I smell pandering.

79 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:34:32pm

re: #69 Charles

Seems reasonable.

80 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:34:38pm

re: #32 Thanos

Sorry to tell you, but there’s a new crop of the hard-core fundies.

en.wikipedia.org

81 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:34:57pm

re: #74 LudwigVanQuixote

We will still be able to get it in 30 years. IN 60 though I would be very happy to loose that bet. I pray I will.

It’s not likely that I’ll be around in sixty years, so it would be a foolish wager. The good news is that you and I might belong to the last generation that will experience natural death. Such is life.

82 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:34:57pm

Also in terms of cognative dissonance here…

Does anyone doubt that an all out nuclear exchange would crash our civilization, drastically alter the environment and kill billions?

We have the power to do that in less than an hour.

So where does the idea that man does not have the power to do such things even come up?

83 keloyd  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:35:46pm

re: #72 Locker

Rush can override The Almighty when he doesn’t show up to church for 40 years, then divorces wife #3, then goes on vacations to the Dominican Republic for reasons I won’t speculate here, not for the multiculturalism, I suspect, then ‘likes his chemistry set a little too much’ as Paulie said on the Sopranos.

Still, if he makes up for all that by going hard-right on religion, which he has never shown even rhetorical interest in before, I guess it all balances out.

84 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:35:51pm

re: #80 Floral Giraffe

Sorry to tell you, but there’s a new crop of the hard-core fundies.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Yes but they diminish every day.

85 DaddyG  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:35:59pm

Hard Core Undies

86 lostlakehiker  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:36:16pm

I have put before you both life and death. Therefore choose life.

We have it in our power to commit suicide by planet-meddling. We are instructed to choose life. But if we insist on choosing evil and ruin for ourselves, that is what we will get.

(Actually, any climate change we bring about by upping CO2 levels will almost certainly fall short of humanity-erasing dimensions. Many other species will go under, and we will be much inconvenienced, (think, hundreds of millions forced out of their farms by rising waters, for starters), but somehow we’ll survive as a species. But why make things worse for ourselves for the next 50 thousand years, until nature in her own sweet time cleans up our mess?)

87 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:36:33pm

re: #70 LudwigVanQuixote

I can accept different religion’s have different takes on where the line to evil has been crossed, but as far as Torah law is concerned, it fits the bill.

Actually it doesn’t. Blindness to reality is quite common, overcoming that blindness is part of the gig. Even encouraging the blindness, helping it along, still doesn’t fit the bill. But let’s leave it there for another day and let things stay on topic.

88 Aceofwhat?  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:36:52pm

re: #82 LudwigVanQuixote

Also in terms of cognative dissonance here…

Does anyone doubt that an all out nuclear exchange would crash our civilization, drastically alter the environment and kill billions?

We have the power to do that in less than an hour.

So where does the idea that man does not have the power to do such things even come up?

Well said.

89 DaddyG  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:37:27pm

re: #75 ShaunP

This is not the first time that Rush has made the link that human’s can’t destroy God’s creation.

Probably not but they seem to have the power to wipe themselves from it.

90 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:38:28pm

re: #85 DaddyG

Hard Core Undies

I saw what you did there… and you are going straight to hell!

//

91 srjh  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:39:12pm

The link between religious fundamentalist/young-earth creationism and AGW denial has been pretty obvious for some time now, but it is good to have it confirmed that high-profile denialist windbags don’t even try to pretend it’s a scientific argument they’re making.

92 cliffster  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:39:20pm

I just took a poll of 20 self-identifying Republicans and they all think what Rush said is… “stupid”.

93 silentbob27  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:39:28pm

Hate to say it, but we are not destroying the earth. We may be destroying its ability to support life as we know it, but the earth will be here long after we are gone… well, unless we make a concerted effort to blow it up. Dont think that is in the Bible though.. never read it. I do remember people mentioning salting the earth. So how bout we say there is Global Salting going on? Maybe that would get a few converts.

94 CarryOn  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:40:24pm

globalwarminghoax.com

95 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:41:08pm

re: #92 cliffster

I call shenanigans. You didn’t poll me!

96 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:41:15pm

Got to run off and do official things for the higher ups… officially. It’s an outrageous outrage!

97 cliffster  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:41:40pm

re: #95 Slumbering Behemoth

I call shenanigans. You didn’t poll me!

I called before noon. You were still sleeping. Sorry.

98 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:41:50pm

re: #94 CarryOn

Of course you would link to one of the premier nutball denialist aggregation sites.

99 SteveC  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:42:39pm

re: #95 Slumbering Behemoth

I call shenanigans.

Call it? I can’t even spell it!

/Outta here for sure this time!

100 Lawrence Schmerel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:42:53pm

Well, obviously, we have the God-given ability to destroy anything we want to.

101 DaddyG  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:42:55pm

re: #98 Thanos

Of course you would link to one of the premier nutball denialist aggregation sites.

Workin on his Karma I’m guessing.

102 silentbob27  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:43:30pm

re: #100 Lawrence Schmerel

Well, obviously, we have the God-given ability to destroy anything we want to.

Is that that whole “free will” thing?

103 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:43:32pm

Before I knew what Intelligent Design was, I made a comment about it here. It contains more logic than any statement by Rush.

wrenchwench 1/02/2007 5:28:39 am PST

I don’t see how anyone who has experienced thirty years of menstrual cycles can believe in “intelligent design.” Ladies?

104 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:43:34pm

re: #97 cliffster

Shoot! You’re right, you know.

105 go_usa  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:44:03pm

God is like a maid who will clean up your mess and buy you oxycontin on the side

106 DaddyG  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:44:24pm

re: #100 Lawrence Schmerel

Well, obviously, we have the God-given ability to destroy anything we want to.

I’ve often told my children that God has delegated many godlike powers to human beings. One is the ability to create life and the other is the ability to destroy it. Neither one is to be taken casually.

107 Lawrence Schmerel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:44:37pm

re: #102 silentbob27

Well, you are free to deny it.

108 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:44:54pm

I think the underlying logic is this: Driving gas-guzzling cars is one of the most blessed outward signs of inner grace. He gave us SUV’s and the Highways to drive our families to our megachurches. God would not allow us to damage his creation by simply showing the world that we are the Chosen Elite.

109 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:44:54pm

re: #99 SteveC

Call it? I can’t even spell it!

That’s no biggie, so long as you grab a broom when you hear the call it’s all good.

110 DaddyG  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:46:07pm

Most people have no problem with the idea that they have agency or “free will”. What they balk at is the consequences that go with their choices.

111 Jack Burton  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:46:29pm

re: #92 cliffster

I just took a poll of 20 self-identifying Republicans and they all think what Rush said is… “stupid”.

Selection bias!

/

112 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:46:45pm

re: #107 Lawrence Schmerel

Well, you are free to deny it.

Free won’t?

113 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:46:52pm

re: #108 ralphieboy

I think the underlying logic is this: Driving gas-guzzling cars is one of the most blessed outward signs of inner grace. He gave us SUV’s and the Highways to drive our families to our megachurches. God would not allow us to damage his creation by simply showing the world that we are the Chosen Elite.

Body on frame chassis’, live real axles and pushrod V8s are God’s Will!

114 CarryOn  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:46:58pm

re: #98 Thanos

Of course you would ‘shoot the messenger’ and ignore data.

115 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:47:57pm

re: #103 wrenchwench

Before I knew what Intelligent Design was, I made a comment about it here. It contains more logic than any statement by Rush.

I usually remind people about dentists.

116 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:04pm

re: #33 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

We need a God with some style to make some announcements every once in a while, or at least a better publicist.

“Yeah, God, its Leo. About your act…you really think a burning bush is gonna be much of a draw nowadays?”

Crap… what’s the show where the two people critique someone’s waredrobe (usually awful) and then go shopping with them and run them through how to dress stylish for their budgets? (friend of mine’s wife watches it.)

I just have an image of them doing a show where they run G-d through that to get him out of the robes and sandals and maybe getting a beard trim…

/

117 silentbob27  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:09pm

re: #107 Lawrence Schmerel

Deny destroying the earth or just fucking it up so we all die? Yes on first, no on second

118 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:19pm

re: #114 CarryOn

Of course you would make no argument yourself. What part of AGW don’t you get? Make an assertion and back it up with published peer reviewed papers or shush.

Now what’s your wild assed claim?

119 Jack Burton  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:20pm

re: #114 CarryOn

Of course you would ‘shoot the messenger’ and ignore data bullshit already debunked a million times.

FTFY

120 Charles Johnson  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:24pm

re: #94 CarryOn

What utter crap.

121 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:26pm

re: #114 CarryOn

Of course you would ‘shoot the messenger’ and ignore data.

People who link to propaganda sites are often are often mocked here. Just letting you know!

122 Locker  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:48:36pm

re: #114 CarryOn

Of course you would ‘shoot the messenger’ and ignore data.

No he shot the bullshit data. The messenger is just whining because he doesn’t like the result.

123 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:49:32pm

Maybe we are finally getting the “reveal” here.

124 Cato the Elder  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:51:10pm

Stinky Limbaugh’s theology is as primitive as his ass is fat. That’s a whole lotta primitive.

God allows man the freedom to do anything at all. We wanna build bombs that can kill the whole world 13.57 times over? Fine with God. It’s that part of the bargain known as free will.

Holocaust, anyone? Rape, torture, murder?

God is not the Great Sky Nanny.

If he won’t even step in with a heart attack for Pat Robertson, why would he balk at us destroying the planet with golf courses and SUVs?

125 fizzlogic  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:51:11pm

re: #78 DaddyG

Rush has always been a social con to his core. What Rush excels at is putting a secular face on it. I think that’s the reason for his formerly broad popularity on the Right.

126 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:52:01pm

re: #110 DaddyG

Most people have no problem with the idea that they have agency or “free will”. What they balk at is the consequences that go with their choices.

I grew up in a generation who believed that Freedom meant the complete absence of any responsiblities. It took me along time to appreciate the fact that Freedom means taking full responsibility for *all* your actions, because you are free of coercion.

Politicians do not come up and say “vote for me and I will deprive you of some of your freedoms”, but rather “Vote for me and i will assume some of your responsibilites.”

And they know that lots of folks will not connect the dots…

127 Mike in Boulder  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:52:56pm

Lancet Retracts Study Tying Child Vaccine to Autism

128 Guanxi88  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:53:28pm

re: #127 Mike in Boulder

Lancet Retracts Study Tying Child Vaccine to Autism

Saw that earlier - as the parent of an autistic child, it’s better late than never, i suppose.

129 Sinistershade  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:54:01pm

re: #67 SteveC

Here ya go…

On a chosen day Herod put on his royal robes, sat on his throne, and made a speech to the people. “It isn’t a man speaking, but a god!” they shouted.
At once the angel of the Lord struck Herod down, because he did not give honor to God. He was eaten by worms and died. - Acts 12:21-23

Sure, but that was a really long time ago. What hell has YHWH raised lately? I know, I know … Haiti, Katrina, AIDS …
/

130 Cato the Elder  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:55:06pm

re: #127 Mike in Boulder

Lancet Retracts Study Tying Child Vaccine to Autism

Suck on that, Jenny.

131 Cato the Elder  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:57:20pm

re: #126 ralphieboy

I grew up in a generation who believed that Freedom meant the complete absence of any responsiblities. It took me along time to appreciate the fact that Freedom means taking full responsibility for *all* your actions, because you are free of coercion.

Politicians do not come up and say “vote for me and I will deprive you of some of your freedoms”, but rather “Vote for me and i will assume some of your responsibilites.”

And they know that lots of folks will not connect the dots…

“Along time”?

It’s that anything like “awhile”?

132 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:57:50pm

There are several sponsored “aggregation” sites for anti-AGW, do any exist besides skimming through science blogs for pro-AGW? I’m thinking if there are not then it needs to be created. There’s obvious political money and muscle behind the denialist camp.

133 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 12:59:42pm

re: #131 Cato the Elder

“Along time”?

It’s that anything like “awhile”?


I don’t spend alot of time proofreading these things…

134 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:00:20pm

re: #132 Thanos

There are absolutely excellent amateur sites, my favorite being skepticalscience.com which contains links to most other prominent AGW blogs.

135 Jack Burton  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:00:25pm

re: #128 Guanxi88

Saw that earlier - as the parent of an autistic child, it’s better late than never, i suppose.

A lot of damage had been done by this bogus paper already. It will take decades of education to roll this back.

136 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:01:21pm

re: #131 Cato the Elder

Cato! You’ll enjoy this:

So I’m driving around late last night to drop some art crap off at a friend’s house, and I turn on the bad talk radio. On Rusty (shudder) Humphrey’s show there’s this female guest who’s talking really really fast, and has this sort of breathless and excited I-can’t-wait-to-connect-the-conspiracy-dots timbre to her voice. After a couple minutes of her ranting about Sharia law and revealing some secret or other in Obama’s cabinet, Humphrey says “and we’ll be back after this break with Pam Geller!”

So now I know what she sounds like. She sounds like an deranged vagrant!

137 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:02:10pm
For a long time, Rush Limbaugh avoided the topic of creationism.

And he was smart to do so, as this bit evidences. “Better to be silent and be thought a fool, etc. …”

138 cliffster  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:02:24pm

re: #127 Mike in Boulder

Lancet Retracts Study Tying Child Vaccine to Autism

In particular,
the claims in the original paper that children were
“consecutively referred” and that investigations were
“approved” by the local ethics committee have been
proven to be false.

So the information that was false was that the investigations were approved by the ethics committees, not the data.

139 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:02:43pm

re: #127 Mike in Boulder

Lancet Retracts Study Tying Child Vaccine to Autism

Awesome. So tired of the bullshit Autism conspiracy theories.

140 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:03:37pm

re: #127 Mike in Boulder

Lancet Retracts Study Tying Child Vaccine to Autism

“Big Pharma brings the hammer down on dissent!”
/ anti-vaxxer reaction

141 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:03:41pm

re: #132 Thanos

There are several sponsored “aggregation” sites for anti-AGW, do any exist besides skimming through science blogs for pro-AGW? I’m thinking if there are not then it needs to be created. There’s obvious political money and muscle behind the denialist camp.


There is a lot of duscussion about the financial interests behind the AGW debate.

The controversy surrounding the research into the melting Himalayan glaciers highlighted that there are millions, even hundreds of millions in research money at stake for those who produce dramatic-looking results.

But the oil and other energy interests represent a multi-trillion dollar industry with a lot more at stake.

142 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:04:01pm

re: #87 Bob Levin

Actually it doesn’t. Blindness to reality is quite common, overcoming that blindness is part of the gig. Even encouraging the blindness, helping it along, still doesn’t fit the bill. But let’s leave it there for another day and let things stay on topic.

No, you are wrong. Do not put a stumbling block before the blind. That is a straight up application.

143 Cato the Elder  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:04:58pm

re: #136 WindUpBird

Cato! You’ll enjoy this:

So I’m driving around late last night to drop some art crap off at a friend’s house, and I turn on the bad talk radio. On Rusty (shudder) Humphrey’s show there’s this female guest who’s talking really really fast, and has this sort of breathless and excited I-can’t-wait-to-connect-the-conspiracy-dots timbre to her voice. After a couple minutes of her ranting about Sharia law and revealing some secret or other in Obama’s cabinet, Humphrey says “and we’ll be back after this break with Pam Geller!”

So now I know what she sounds like. She sounds like an deranged vagrant!

Oh. My. God.

I wonder if she gets paid in Stoli.

144 martinsmithy  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:05:11pm

I have no idea whether Limbaugh truly believes in creationism or global warming denial. His personal beliefs on these subjects are as irrelevant as the personal beliefs of Pee Wee Herman on these subjects. Because Limbaugh is an entertainer, after ratings, sponsors, and money, and if he believes that advocating creationism or global warming denial will boost his ratings, that’s what he will believe in. When he no longer believes that they will boost his ratings, he’ll change tack. He’s a phoney, a fraud, a huckster, and a person playing anyone who takes his political views seriously for a fool.

The problem for the rest of us is that, unlike Pee Wee Herman, his way of making money despoils our national political discourse.

145 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:05:24pm

re: #134 Obdicut

There are absolutely excellent amateur sites, my favorite being [Link: www.skepticalscience.com…] which contains links to most other prominent AGW blogs.

That’s a collection of links to sites I’m already aware of, I’m talking about a site that aggregates latest news. One that stays topical on the latest debunking of anti-AGW tp.

146 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:06:30pm

re: #145 Thanos

Ohhh. Sorry, no, I don’t know of such a thing.

147 lawhawk  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:06:55pm

re: #139 WindUpBird

Agreed. And the events bear out that the MMR had nothing to do with autism; the autism incidence appears to have increased, even as the vaccination rates have decreased to about 80% from 90% (you would expect to see a marginal decrease in autism if there was a connection between vaccinations and autism). And the substance that many anti-vaxxers claimed was behind the autism incidence has not been part of the vaccines for years, and yet the rate has increased.

Something else is at play - whether it’s better identification and diagnosis or some other factor in the environment, genetics, or a combination of factors. The vaccines were not at fault here despite the hysterical shrieking.

148 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:07:12pm

re: #145 Thanos

That’s a collection of links to sites I’m already aware of, I’m talking about a site that aggregates latest news. One that stays topical on the latest debunking of anti-AGW tp.

Like a war-room thing? That’d be useful!

149 Cato the Elder  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:08:17pm

re: #132 Thanos

There are several sponsored “aggregation” sites for anti-AGW, do any exist besides skimming through science blogs for pro-AGW? I’m thinking if there are not then it needs to be created. There’s obvious political money and muscle behind the denialist camp.

If AGW is true, the denialists will find out in due time. Why waste money that could go to R&D on convincing people with no respect for reality?

150 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:08:18pm

re: #94 CarryOn

[Link: www.globalwarminghoax.com…]

And out of the wood work comes another denialist. Look, I know you guys think that whatever BS you read at propaganda sites is a substitute for actual science. If and when you decide to look at the truth, please go to any of the legitimate scientific organizations.

They will give you facts, data and math. In otherwords, they will give you the actual science.

Here is a good place to start.

earthguide.ucsd.edu

151 SixDegrees  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:08:56pm

re: #138 cliffster

So the information that was false was that the investigations were approved by the ethics committees, not the data.

That’s just a small sampling of the problems found; there are many, many others. Most of the other authors had asked that their names be removed from the study prior to this retraction. 8 of the 10 original authors coauthored another paper withdrawing their claims independently of the Lancet.

Also, about the data? There was a total of 12 children involved. And since their selection was far from random, it’s impossible to attach any significance to the results at all. Even if they had been perfectly randomly selected, the margin of error for such a small sampling would be around 30%, but in reality the results are, simply, meaningless.

152 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:09:11pm

re: #149 Cato the Elder

If AGW is true, the denialists will find out in due time. Why waste money that could go to R&D on convincing people with no respect for reality?

BEcause without the public understanding the realities of this, the government will not act in time and then we are really fucked.

153 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:09:29pm

re: #147 lawhawk

My money is on proper diagnosis. I used to try and argue with people on boards about this vaxxer stuff, it just became too exhausting. They had their hands around that conspiracy theory that confirmed all their prejudices against modern medicine and they wouldn’t let go for love or money.

154 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:09:53pm

re: #145 Thanos

That’s a collection of links to sites I’m already aware of, I’m talking about a site that aggregates latest news. One that stays topical on the latest debunking of anti-AGW tp.

The left-hand column of Climate Debate Daily fills the bill for me.

155 Lidane  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:09:53pm

Sorry for going OT, but I thought this was too absurd to ignore:

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran

I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

156 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:09:58pm

re: #145 Thanos

That’s a collection of links to sites I’m already aware of, I’m talking about a site that aggregates latest news. One that stays topical on the latest debunking of anti-AGW tp.

Nevermind, I clicked out to the blog instead of the links page. They seem to cover a lot, but I’m talking about a major site that does nothing but aggregate short snips of articles from all pro AGW sites and supporting papers and news.

157 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:11:40pm

Well, I want to say something funny and poignant about this whole Rush situation, but really, the biggest joke seems to be Rush himself. Perhaps I can use that to my advantage…

Rush walks into a bar… you’d think he would’ve ducked.

And on that note, I hope y’all have a great evening. Be safe!

158 Bubblehead II  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:11:52pm

UEA e-mails leak climate scientist defends his work

The scientist at the centre of a row over climate change research has defended himself against claims that he manipulated data.

FWIW.

New Thread ———————->

159 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:13:08pm

re: #150 LudwigVanQuixote

And out of the wood work comes another denialist. Look, I know you guys think that whatever BS you read at propaganda sites is a substitute for actual science. If and when you decide to look at the truth, please go to any of the legitimate scientific organizations.

They will give you facts, data and math. In otherwords, they will give you the actual science.

Here is a good place to start.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu…]

*lightbulb*

Ludwig, while we’re waiting for Charles to consider putting up a folder of some of your AGW links, here’s an idea. You could select a half-dozen of the best ones for a general audience, and put the addresses in your user profile. That way, they’d be here whenever you’re here!

160 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:14:45pm

re: #159 The Sanity Inspector

*lightbulb*

Ludwig, while we’re waiting for Charles to consider putting up a folder of some of your AGW links, here’s an idea. You could select a half-dozen of the best ones for a general audience, and put the addresses in your user profile. That way, they’d be here whenever you’re here!

That is a great idea.

161 webevintage  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:15:21pm

Now on NPR, annoying man (Congressman Hunter) annoying me with idiotic statements about gays in the military and DADT….

shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup….

wow, just infered that our military is better the other countries because we don’t have gays serving openly.
ugh and ugh….

162 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:16:05pm

re: #127 Mike in Boulder

Lancet Retracts Study Tying Child Vaccine to Autism


This will make little difference to the converted, assuming they read it at all.

163 Cato the Elder  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:16:26pm

re: #152 LudwigVanQuixote

BEcause without the public understanding the realities of this, the government will not act in time and then we are really fucked.

It is not in the hands of “the government” - ours or anyone else’s. It is in the hands of the “avalanche of hot meat that eats everything in sight, makes love, and then doubles in size” (Vonnegut). In other words, humankind.

Ever try to legislate an avalanche?

We are really fucked.

But it’s good to have you back here and in fighting form.

164 Randall Gross  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:16:51pm

re: #160 LudwigVanQuixote

That is a great idea.

You could also used the favorites function to mark your own comments with the links in ‘em.

165 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:16:56pm

re: #155 Lidane

Sorry for going OT, but I thought this was too absurd to ignore:

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran

I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

That’s a really frivolous thing for Daniel Pipes, whom I respect, to say. I don’t expect concern trolling from him, after all the solid anti-jihad work he’s done over the years.

166 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:17:49pm

re: #161 webevintage

I guess he must think that Israel’s military branches are utter crap, then?

167 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:18:02pm

re: #163 Cato the Elder

It is not in the hands of “the government” - ours or anyone else’s. It is in the hands of the “avalanche of hot meat that eats everything in sight, makes love, and then doubles in size” (Vonnegut). In other words, humankind.

Ever try to legislate an avalanche?

We are really fucked.

But it’s good to have you back here and in fighting form.

Well, we may well lose the fight. If we do everyone loses for certain. However, I am not yet ready to give up hope that people will take some responsibility if only out of self interest.

And thanks for the welcome. I always liked you.

168 Cato the Elder  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:18:23pm

re: #155 Lidane

Sorry for going OT, but I thought this was too absurd to ignore:

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran

I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that idea?

Something similar worked for Dubya.

169 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:18:53pm

re: #164 Thanos

You could also used the favorites function to mark your own comments with the links in ‘em.

I already have. Actually, I should just go back and really make a link post. I sort of already did, but it got lost in the shuffle.

170 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:21:09pm

re: #168 Cato the Elder

Something similar worked for Dubya.

If Obama really did bomb iran, Rush and the Right would find reasons to criticize him. Probably for leaving anything at all standing or crawling about afterwards…

171 Pythagoras  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:23:50pm

re: #144 martinsmithy

I have no idea whether Limbaugh truly believes in creationism or global warming denial. His personal beliefs on these subjects are as irrelevant as the personal beliefs of Pee Wee Herman on these subjects. Because Limbaugh is an entertainer, after ratings, sponsors, and money, and if he believes that advocating creationism or global warming denial will boost his ratings, that’s what he will believe in. When he no longer believes that they will boost his ratings, he’ll change tack. He’s a phoney, a fraud, a huckster, and a person playing anyone who takes his political views seriously for a fool.

The problem for the rest of us is that, unlike Pee Wee Herman, his way of making money despoils our national political discourse.

Bingo. Who gives a rip what Limbaugh thinks? Give a million Limbaughs with a million typewriters a million years and one will eventually write a coherent sentence. Should we then decide that this sentence must be true?

172 Charles Johnson  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:25:24pm

re: #171 Pythagoras

Bingo. Who gives a rip what Limbaugh thinks?

A whole lot of conservatives take his every word as gospel truth.

littlegreenfootballs.com

173 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:30:31pm

re: #168 Cato the Elder

I’d hope that the decision is to do the best for the country, and not for the administration. Be it Obama’s, Bush’s, etc. And I don’t see how triggering another war in the ME is going to be good for the U.S., or the world for that matter.

174 Pythagoras  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:40:22pm

re: #172 Charles

A whole lot of conservatives take his every word as gospel truth.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

OK, this is relevant — and something I wasn’t aware of. I followed the links and didn’t find as much info on the poll as I’d like. I did find this.

cbsnews.com

I don’t want to defend Rush, or conservatives, or anyone else, but I do wonder about this poll (and this is what I couldn’t discern from the links). Did they only poll conservatives? If not, then Rush at 28% of the general population could, in part, reflect who non-conservatives think is the leader of the conservatives.

I don’t think Rush’s ratings are THAT high anyway. He can’t be your leader if you have absolutely no idea what he’s saying.

175 Donna Ballard  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:49:09pm

Good Afternoon Everyone, Happy Tuesday!

176 Charles Johnson  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:51:05pm

re: #174 Pythagoras

I don’t think Rush’s ratings are THAT high anyway.

14.25 million listeners a week as of March 2009.

177 EB71  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:57:15pm

re: #11 middy

Yes, but the rainbow symbolizes G-d’s covenant that G-d would never again bring a Flood into the world to destroy all life on the earth. However, in agreement with comments above, I would think this leaves open the possibilities that (i) G-d could select some other way to destroy all life on the earth; (ii) G-d could allow humanity to develop means of destroying all life on the earth (G-d has already permitted this capacity to humanity (nuclear weapons); it merely a question of if/when humanity uses it); (iii) G-d could even allow humanity to cause the destruction of a significant portion of life on earth by means including a flood (as contemplated by extreme catastrophic AGW). So I have a hard time following how a creationist/religious perspective would lead to the conclusion that catastrophic AGW absolutely cannot occur.

Below, a slightly tangential joke:
jewishfederations.org

178 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 1:58:20pm

re: #176 Charles

14.25 million listeners a week as of March 2009.

In other words, 14.25 million raving idiots.

179 Pythagoras  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:07:51pm

re: #176 Charles

14.25 million listeners a week as of March 2009.

I didn’t know that either but it’s less than 5% of the population and thus, I’d guess, less than 26% of conservatives. It’s higher than I thought but not THAT high.

The CBS write-up said:

By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation’s most influential conservative voice. … The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, …

I fault many polls — but this seems worse than most. I don’t care what percentage of “Americans” consider Limbaugh the “most influential conservative voice.” They give the impression that 26% of conservatives identified Limbaugh as their most influential.

The poll isn’t biased, just clueless (unless that part of the survey was limited to conservatives — which is still a possibility I can’t determine).

180 AlexRogan  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:17:05pm

re: #130 Cato the Elder

Suck on that, Jenny.

Won’t matter to the true believers like her…they’ll just say The Lancet folded under pressure from the US and British governments and Big Pharma.

/sad but true

181 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:24:03pm

re: #3 LudwigVanQuixote

A very simple point from a theological view.

If you were to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, God, could make a miracle and make the bullet disappear. However, no one should ever bank on that.

Hi Ludwig. Going OT, but I was wondering - are you familiar with the quantum suicide experiment, where the gun has a quantum firing mechanism? Max Tegmark says the experimenter would always survive, although his colleagues would observe his death according to normal probability dictates.

182 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:26:09pm
And even more interestingly, Limbaugh tied those beliefs to his denial of global warming. Limbaugh’s “philosophy,” if you can call it that, is that since God created the planet Earth, he simply would not allow mankind to have the ability to destroy it through environmental damage.

Yep - this dominionist codswallop is exactly why so many on the RR can’t take climate change seriously.

183 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:30:09pm

re: #181 Jimmah

Hi Ludwig. Going OT, but I was wondering - are you familiar with the quantum suicide experiment, where the gun has a quantum firing mechanism? Max Tegmark says the experimenter would always survive, although his colleagues would observe his death according to normal probability dictates.

It sounds like a sick version of Schroedingers cat. I have not seen it before though and I would have to see how it was rigged to conclude that.

184 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:44:56pm

re: #124 Cato the Elder

Stinky Limbaugh’s theology is as primitive as his ass is fat. That’s a whole lotta primitive.

God allows man the freedom to do anything at all. We wanna build bombs that can kill the whole world 13.57 times over? Fine with God. It’s that part of the bargain known as free will.

Holocaust, anyone? Rape, torture, murder?

God is not the Great Sky Nanny.

If he won’t even step in with a heart attack for Pat Robertson, why would he balk at us destroying the planet with golf courses and SUVs?

There is no Celestial Toddler Gate.

185 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:53:38pm

re: #183 LudwigVanQuixote

It sounds like a sick version of Schroedingers cat. I have not seen it before though and I would have to see how it was rigged to conclude that.

I think it’s contentious for several reasons that even I as a non physicist can see, eg how could one be confident of such clean outcomes? Maybe the most likely event is that the gun goes off as normal but your ability to observe somehow survives the wound. Interesting though…

Image: everett_newsci1.gif

I suggested in an email to Tegmark after reading this that we could rig the planet with an array of nukes primed with a quantum trigger so that the whole of humanity could observe the outcome of the experiment together. He agreed , remarking that he’d considered this too, but felt he’d be unlikely to get funding to go ahead with it ;-)

186 Qabal  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 2:54:11pm

re: #80 Floral Giraffe

Fundamentalism and evangelicalism are quite different. Saddleback, led by Rick Warren, is mainstream evangelicalism, not fundamentalism. Though there may be some overlap in the beliefs of various cross-sections of each group, they are not equivalent.

187 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:00:07pm

re: #161 webevintage

Now on NPR, annoying man (Congressman Hunter) annoying me with idiotic statements about gays in the military and DADT…

shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup shutup…

wow, just infered that our military is better the other countries because we don’t have gays serving openly.
ugh and ugh…

Israel’s got gays serving openly. They do not seem to have damaged the awesomeness of their operation.

188 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:01:53pm

re: #170 ralphieboy

If Obama really did bomb iran, Rush and the Right would find reasons to criticize him. Probably for leaving anything at all standing or crawling about afterwards…

No, no, he did it to distract from his abysmal performance at home, or to cover up a scandal. That was what always got leveled at Clinton.

189 eneri  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:05:20pm

Rush is a bobble head.

190 eneri  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:08:01pm

re: #187 SanFranciscoZionist

I fail to understand why the president does not just issue an executive order. Truman did to desegregate the armed forces and in spite of “the sky is falling” rhetoric from generals and congressmen, the sky is still there.

191 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:11:04pm

re: #190 eneri

I fail to understand why the president does not just issue an executive order. Truman did to desegregate the armed forces and in spite of “the sky is falling” rhetoric from generals and congressmen, the sky is still there.

And when Truman did, it still took 5 years to implement.

Given the political climate and the rampant seething homophobia, I think Obama is doing the right thing by holding these hearings and garnering as much support as possible. It will still take years but I think it’s the only way to do it and it’s smart.

192 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:14:02pm

re: #190 eneri

I fail to understand why the president does not just issue an executive order. Truman did to desegregate the armed forces and in spite of “the sky is falling” rhetoric from generals and congressmen, the sky is still there.

That’s what I always think of. We just went ahead and DID that, and the world did not end, and we are a better nation.

Also, I have to say that it always strikes me as interesting that men who make a career of training men to kill and die and change tires under fire for their country claim to be able to get them to do anything but shower and bunk with a black guy/gay guy/female guy/guy from outer space…

193 Jaerik  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:14:45pm

A common way that I’m attacked when I profess my atheism is that such a view is “arrogant.” That is, it’s arrogant to assume I know a god does not exist. And to assume that if one did exist, it would be rational and consistent in a way my human brain could understand.

That’s such bullshit.

It’s far more arrogant to assume, like Rush does, that you have an all-powerful buddy who’s motivations are unknowable to everyone except you. And who’s only comprehensible, consistent motivation is that he has your best interests in mind, and will always save you from yourself.

194 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:16:25pm

re: #191 iceweasel

*big sigh* I’m so tired of my gay friends & family being discriminated against just because they’re gay.

195 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:17:19pm

re: #191 iceweasel

And when Truman did, it still took 5 years to implement.

Given the political climate and the rampant seething homophobia, I think Obama is doing the right thing by holding these hearings and garnering as much support as possible. It will still take years but I think it’s the only way to do it and it’s smart.

There is also the issue of the law which congress passed forbidding it back when Clinton tried. That law needs to go away first and the Dems do not have the courage for that fight.

196 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:19:01pm

re: #194 eclectic infidel

*big sigh* I’m so tired of my gay friends & family being discriminated against just because they’re gay.

So am I. It’s disgusting.
I’m looking at the political climate though. Do I think it should have been overturned years ago? Obviously, yes. Do I wish we could wipe it out today? Also yes, obviously.
I reluctantly think this process is probably the best way to go, pragmatically speaking.

197 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:19:31pm

re: #187 SanFranciscoZionist

Israel’s got gays serving openly. They do not seem to have damaged the awesomeness of their operation.

The Spartans were pretty good at fighting too… for that matter so were Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar…

Though to be fair, Julie was more pan sexual. I think his standards were a hole and a heartbeat - and the heartbeat is debatable.

While we are at it, Richard the Lionhearted… Hmmm we still have his love letter to the king of France.

198 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:21:26pm

re: #195 LudwigVanQuixote

There is also the issue of the law which congress passed forbidding it back when Clinton tried. That law needs to go away first and the Dems do not have the courage for that fight.

Yep. I think Obama is consciously employing lessons learned from the Clinton administration’s failure to make progress on some of the items on his agenda. Just as with health care, the lesson he learned was to make it happen from the bottom up— if it does happen. There’s no way HCR would even still be on the table if he’d gone to them with a plan.
Similarly with DADT.
Sure, I’d like to see more leadership on this. But this is what we’ve got.

199 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:23:13pm

re: #193 Jaerik

A common way that I’m attacked when I profess my atheism is that such a view is “arrogant.” That is, it’s arrogant to assume I know a god does not exist. And to assume that if one did exist, it would be rational and consistent in a way my human brain could understand.

That’s such bullshit.

It’s far more arrogant to assume, like Rush does, that you have an all-powerful buddy who’s motivations are unknowable to everyone except you. And who’s only comprehensible, consistent motivation is that he has your best interests in mind, and will always save you from yourself.

Be very wary if your idea of God in your head agrees with you all the time. That’s a good sign that you may just be talking to yourself.

200 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:25:04pm

re: #196 iceweasel

Hi iceweasel. I hope you are well. I have an update to give you, as requested here.

The update is here.

I take no pleasure in sharing the info. I wish he were another Barrett B., or something, but apparently not.

201 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:26:37pm

re: #200 wrenchwench

Hi iceweasel. I hope you are well. I have an update to give you, as requested here.

The update is here.

I take no pleasure in sharing the info. I wish he were another Barrett B., or something, but apparently not.

Steve Sailor is a problem, but I’m not throwing Weigel’s work out yet. Have you written to Wiegel about his link? Maybe you should.

202 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:27:18pm

re: #197 LudwigVanQuixote

The Spartans were pretty good at fighting too… for that matter so were Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar…

Though to be fair, Julie was more pan sexual. I think his standards were a hole and a heartbeat - and the heartbeat is debatable.

While we are at it, Richard the Lionhearted… Hmmm we still have his love letter to the king of France.

Von Steuben, so I’ve been told…as Americans, we owe him quite a bit.

I love the scene in Rome where the crazy mother thinks Octavian is sleeping with Caesar (his great-uncle, mind you), and is quite disappointed when Octavian insists it’s not true. She had seen some political possibilities opening up.

203 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:28:17pm

re: #198 iceweasel

Yep. I think Obama is consciously employing lessons learned from the Clinton administration’s failure to make progress on some of the items on his agenda. Just as with health care, the lesson he learned was to make it happen from the bottom up— if it does happen. There’s no way HCR would even still be on the table if he’d gone to them with a plan.
Similarly with DADT.
Sure, I’d like to see more leadership on this. But this is what we’ve got.

Except that the biggest issue with the Dems has always been lack of focus and lack of discipline. They had two years to do things and get important things passed. They did not need the GOP - if they had discipline. It takes the failed leadership and lack of focus of the Dems to loose Ted Kennedy’s seat to a tea partier no less.

We could have had a good health care bill. Yet the Dems had to surrender everything to the GOP and they could not controll their own people. We could have had meaningful legislation on climate, but there was the same problem.

The GOP really is evil.

The Dems however are weak, disorganized surrender monkeys.

All the good intentions in the world they have evaporate when the rubber hits the road. At the end of the day, the real problem is that the Dems are much more political than the GOP.

What I mean by that is that the Dems have career politicians that stand for very little, much more thoroughly through their ranks. More of the GOP monsters actually believe in what they say it seems, and they certainly know how to think long term and take one for the team when it comes to politics. Anything to win they say and they do it. But many of them actually do believe in their creationist anti-science anti-gay fear mongering.

The Dems on the other hand think that once they are up it is time to completely cash in on personal agendas. As such they get little done.

This is what happened when Clinton had a Dem congress too.

204 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:28:39pm

re: #202 SanFranciscoZionist

Von Steuben, so I’ve been told…as Americans, we owe him quite a bit.

I love the scene in Rome where the crazy mother thinks Octavian is sleeping with Caesar (his great-uncle, mind you), and is quite disappointed when Octavian insists it’s not true. She had seen some political possibilities opening up.

That was a great series.

205 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:29:17pm

re: #202 SanFranciscoZionist

Ohh and of course you are right about Von Steuben. That is why he was exiled from Prussia.

206 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:29:40pm

re: #203 LudwigVanQuixote

Agree with every word. :-)

207 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:31:22pm

re: #201 iceweasel

Steve Sailor is a problem, but I’m not throwing Weigel’s work out yet. Have you written to Wiegel about his link? Maybe you should.

I have no interest in contacting Weigel. He has no reason to care what I say, and apparently this isn’t a new turn for him or anything.

You like him, maybe you should see if he has anything to say for himself?

208 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:33:30pm

re: #207 wrenchwench

I have no interest in contacting Weigel. He has no reason to care what I say, and apparently this isn’t a new turn for him or anything.

You like him, maybe you should see if he has anything to say for himself?

Charles seems to like him too.
Sorry, I’m not going to ignore Weigel’s entire body of work based on him not updating his blogroll.

209 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:36:36pm

re: #208 iceweasel

Charles seems to like him too.
Sorry, I’m not going to ignore Weigel’s entire body of work based on him not updating his blogroll.

I’m not campaigning for you to ignore him or throw his work out or anything like that. I’ll probably still read his stuff too. He’s done a lot of work sorting out the tea partiers. Just sharing what I know with someone who expressed interest.

210 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:38:09pm

re: #209 wrenchwench

I’m not campaigning for you to ignore him or throw his work out or anything like that. I’ll probably still read his stuff too. He’s done a lot of work sorting out the tea partiers. Just sharing what I know with someone who expressed interest.

Thanks for the update! And as mentioned before, should you find anything Weigel himself has written that suggests he’s a seekrit wingnut, do let me know. Should I find anything, I’ll be letting folks know.

211 SpaceJesus  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:38:34pm

oh ok it all makes sense now

212 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:39:05pm

re: #204 LudwigVanQuixote

That was a great series.

Speaking of great HBO… True Blood… Great show :)

213 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:39:46pm

re: #210 iceweasel

Thanks for the update! And as mentioned before, should you find anything Weigel himself has written that suggests he’s a seekrit wingnut, do let me know. Should I find anything, I’ll be letting folks know.

I never suggested he was a wingnut.

I suggested he hangs around with racists.

Not everyone who hangs around with racists is a wingnut.

214 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:45:44pm

re: #213 wrenchwench

I never suggested he was a wingnut.

I suggested he hangs around with racists.

Not everyone who hangs around with racists is a wingnut.

Not everyone who covers racists and the extremist fringe on the right is a racist— or a rightwing extremist.

215 goanna  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:48:14pm

re: #48 Elle Plater

? Kevin Rudd isn’t a creationist either.

216 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:49:24pm

re: #214 iceweasel

Not everyone who covers racists and the extremist fringe on the right is a racist— or a rightwing extremist.

I did not base my opinion on his coverage, nor did I refer to him as a racist, nor an extremist of any sort..

217 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:52:00pm

re: #213 wrenchwench

I never suggested he was a wingnut.

I suggested he hangs around with racists.

Not everyone who hangs around with racists is a wingnut.

‘Hangs around with’ - you make it sound like this is a purely social thing, and nothing to do with journalism. Do you have anything to suggest that Wiegels interest is not journalistic?

From your link:

And RS McCain says:

…Weigel and I are good buddies…

He continues:

And I’ve plied Hitchens with Johnny Walker while he told bawdy jokes at a DuPont Circle beer joint.

Gosh it’s all coming out now! Hitchens ‘hangs around’ with racists too! Not to mention religious nutcases of all sorts. No really, this couldn’t possibly just be McCain in a desperate attempt to deflect criticism of his extreme right wing friends associations! He wouldn’t do that!/

218 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:54:25pm

re: #217 Jimmah

What about the Steve Sailer link?

219 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 3:55:48pm

re: #216 wrenchwench

I did not base my opinion on his coverage, nor did I refer to him as a racist, nor an extremist of any sort..

Then it looks like you’ve based it on 1) a flickr photo showing him at a function at which lots of media were present— like the Weekly Standard’s Mary Katherine Ham, 2) a twitter comment, and 3) a link on a blogroll, on a blog that DW does maintenance on so infrequently he hasn’t even updated his own bio there.

Yeah, I’ll be waiting for something in his coverage before I question his coverage. But thanks for the info.

220 oldegeezr  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:00:37pm

Rush’s take on AWG, creationism and religion in general; has been out there since at least, late 2007.

“If you don’t believe in God, you have no meaning in your life, and you will thus search for meaning, and you will find it anywhere. Most people, even atheists, want religion of some kind in their life. Hello, global warming, as a substitute—apparently unrecognized and not even organized—religion. Yet it is. So you can set the stage for more people, if the atheists were to ever get their way, of establishing global warming as an unofficial religion that does force people to behave in religious ways, just to a false god: the earth, a tangible god… The global warming people essentially are atheists. You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming. You just can’t. You might run around and say, ‘I don’t want to destroy God’s creation.’ God’s laughing at you. You can’t! He could, but you can’t. You can’t create it; you can’t destroy it.”~~Rush Limbaugh

While Limbaugh insists we can’t destroy the earth; George Carlin reminds us that while the earth may not be destroyed…it may not exist in a suitable form that includes humans as its inhabitants…!

“The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet … the planet … the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!”~~George Carlin

I feel George has the better hook on the crux of the debate.

221 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:01:04pm

re: #218 wrenchwench

What about the Steve Sailer link?

What of it? I’m sure given your most recent statements that you’d agree that whatever the reason for it’s being there, it certainly isn’t because he agrees with him.

222 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:01:16pm

re: #219 iceweasel

Then it looks like you’ve based it on 1) a flickr photo showing him at a function at which lots of media were present— like the Weekly Standard’s Mary Katherine Ham, 2) a twitter comment, and 3) a link on a blogroll, on a blog that DW does maintenance on so infrequently he hasn’t even updated his own bio there.

Yeah, I’ll be waiting for something in his coverage before I question his coverage. But thanks for the info.

Hey, I had forgotten about the twitter comment. The Sailer link bothers me the most. The fact that he’s also written for the American Conservative and the American Spectator magazines would be next. Then the comments from and about RS McCain. And writing for Reason is no plus in my book.

223 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:03:06pm

re: #222 wrenchwench

Hey, I had forgotten about the twitter comment. The Sailer link bothers me the most. The fact that he’s also written for the American Conservative and the American Spectator magazines would be next. Then the comments from and about RS McCain. And writing for Reason is no plus in my book.

That’s right— he wrote about McCain. Charles even had a post about it, because Weigel did such a good job getting McCain to run his yap and dig his hole deeper.

I believe he left Reason quite a while ago. For the Washington Independent.

224 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:04:07pm

re: #221 Jimmah

What of it? I’m sure given your most recent statements that you’d agree that whatever the reason for it’s being there, it certainly isn’t because he agrees with him.

I can only assume the link is there because he felt like supporting Sailer in some way at some time. If he no longer feels that way, he should say so. I don’t know what you mean by

I’m sure given your most recent statements that you’d agree…
225 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:06:56pm

re: #223 iceweasel

That’s right— he wrote about McCain. Charles even had a post about it, because Weigel did such a good job getting McCain to run his yap and dig his hole deeper.

I believe he left Reason quite a while ago. For the Washington Independent.

Maybe.

David Weigel
Contributing Editor

David Weigel is an associate editor of Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he regularly writes on politics.

Previously, Weigel served as an editorial assistant at USA Today’s editorial page and as a reporter for Campaigns & Elections.

Weigel has written for the Los Angeles Times, Money, Radar, Time.com, The Politico, The American Spectator, The American Conservative, The American Prospect and numerous other publications.

Weigel is a graduate of Northwestern University, where he received a B.A. in journalism and political science. He lives in Washington, DC.

Looks like it’s been a year since his most recent article.

226 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:10:02pm

re: #225 wrenchwench

Maybe.

Dave Weigel Leaves Reason Magazine
November 2008.

227 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:14:14pm

re: #224 wrenchwench

That’s not the only possible reason. But if the link was made because he agreed with him on some matter that came up prior to his expressions of evident racism, then the issue is, as has been suggested, merely one of updating his blog. Whatever the issue is, it isn’t that Weigel is the worlds most sekrit racist wingnut.

I don’t know what you mean by

I’m sure given your most recent statements that you’d agree…

You can’t figure it out? Ok, these comments here, for example :

I never suggested he was a wingnut.

and

I did not base my opinion on his coverage, nor did I refer to him as a racist, nor an extremist of any sort..

228 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:17:05pm

re: #227 Jimmah

Wiegel hadn’t even updated his own bio on his blog to reflect that he’d left Reason, at least as of a month ago, despite leaving them in December 2008 and announcing it on his own blog in Dec 2008.

I’m not ready to throw out all the work he’s done—which has been almost entirely devoted to exposing racism and extremists on the right since 2006— because he isn’t maintaining his blogroll.

229 Bob Levin  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:17:55pm

re: #142 LudwigVanQuixote

No, you are wrong. Do not put a stumbling block before the blind. That is a straight up application.

Right, but that’s considered a sin, a screw up. And there are things you can do to repair that hurt. But that doesn’t make such a person evil. We don’t do sin=evil.

I understand the temptation to classify Rush as evil. There have been times the car radio went on when I started the car, and there he was—for about five seconds.

To get to evil, you have to go to the sections where Gd calls something evil, then compare that to the many other sections where things aren’t going smoothly—and there are many—and then cross-reference the sections where the word evil is used, think about it, talk about it, read the commentary, and then you’ll form a hypothesis. Then repeat.

And by the way, there are no straight up applications. Like I say, very complex set of readings.

In the meantime, we should act like mensches and enjoy the sushi.

Provided it had fins and scales. ;-)

230 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:39:16pm

re: #227 Jimmah

re: #228 iceweasel

Again, I didn’t call him a racist nor a wingnut, nor did I lobby for anyone to quit reading him.

231 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:48:40pm

re: #230 wrenchwench

re: #228 iceweasel

Again, I didn’t call him a racist nor a wingnut, nor did I lobby for anyone to quit reading him.

What you did say was this:

I take no pleasure in sharing the info. I wish he were another Barrett B., or something, but apparently not.

and

I suggested he hangs around with racists.

You were trying to smear a good journalist on the flimsiest and most ill-researched grounds. You need to stop.

232 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:51:39pm

re: #231 Jimmah

You were trying to smear a good journalist on the flimsiest and most ill-researched grounds. You need to stop.

I “smeared” him by linking to his blog and to other public information about who he has written for. If that constitutes a smear, he has smeared himself.

In order to deny that he does hang around with racists, you need to deny that RS McCain is a racist. Are you ready to do that?

233 theheat  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:56:16pm
“…since God created the planet Earth, he simply would not allow mankind to have the ability to destroy it through environmental damage…

I think the only things Rush is incapable of denying are food, exercise, and his ego.

Perhaps he could grasp this concept, with or without God playing a role: Shitting in your own nest. That’s what we’re doing to the planet; shitting in our own nest. At some point, the shit takes over and makes things uninhabitable. Pretty simple. Right now we’re up to our necks in shit, and the only thing we’re good at is breeding more shitters and making more shit.

Mankind needs better shit management.

234 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 4:57:44pm

re: #232 wrenchwench

I “smeared” him by linking to his blog and to other public information about who he has written for. If that constitutes a smear, he has smeared himself.

In order to deny that he does hang around with racists, you need to deny that RS McCain is a racist. Are you ready to do that?

You smeared him by suggesting that there was something amiss with him - “he’s no Barret Brown” and then said he was ‘hanging out’ with racists, like it was a purely social thing and not a part of his journalism.

I already took issue with your use of the suggestive term “hangs out with” and asked if you could justify it. You could not, yet you now repeat it. Pathetic.

235 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:02:08pm

re: #234 Jimmah

You smeared him by suggesting that there was something amiss with him - “he’s no Barret Brown” and then said he was ‘hanging out’ with racists, like it was a purely social thing and not a part of his journalism.

I already took issue with your use of the suggestive term “hangs out with” and asked if you could justify it. You could not, yet you now repeat it. Pathetic.

Well, she could have, for example, checked the posts Weigel has written about Sailor, where she would have found out that Weigel derides him as a white nationalist and a eugenicist on a regular basis. DW links Sailor in order to mock him and inflict butthurt on him.
That gets in the way of the wardance though.
Sigh. Conservatives just don’t understand snark.

236 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:04:54pm

re: #232 wrenchwench

I “smeared” him by linking to his blog and to other public information about who he has written for. If that constitutes a smear, he has smeared himself.

In order to deny that he does hang around with racists, you need to deny that RS McCain is a racist. Are you ready to do that?

Here is an example of an argument employing guilt by association and smearing, and poor research, which is exactly analogous to what you’re doing:
1. Charles Johnson co-founded PJM.
2. PJM is a crazy wingnut haunt.
Therefore, CJ must somehow endorse them or like them.

Now, only someone incredibly lazy— i.e., they’re willing to ignore everything CJ has actually written— or deceitful would make that argument.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a hate-on for Weigel.

237 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:05:43pm

re: #234 Jimmah

You smeared him by suggesting that there was something amiss with him - “he’s no Barret Brown” and then said he was ‘hanging out’ with racists, like it was a purely social thing and not a part of his journalism.

I already took issue with your use of the suggestive term “hangs out with” and asked if you could justify it. You could not, yet you now repeat it. Pathetic.

“He’s not Barrett Brown” is a smear? I’m sure Mr. Brown will be amused.

The “hangs out with” part is documented. There are the photos on RS McCain’s site, and the Tweet. Hanging out on the internet counts. The Tweet was social. The party was social.

re: #235 iceweasel

Well, she could have, for example, checked the posts Weigel has written about Sailor, where she would have found out that Weigel derides him as a white nationalist and a eugenicist on a regular basis. DW links Sailor in order to mock him and inflict butthurt on him.
That gets in the way of the wardance though.
Sigh. Conservatives just don’t understand snark.

Perhaps you could link for me where Weigel writes about Sailer. I opened this by sharing info that you expressed interest in. Why would you withhold a link?

Are you referring to me as a conservative? Based on what?

By the way, I’m leaving in about ten minutes, as I always do at this time of day.

238 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:08:39pm

re: #237 wrenchwench

Perhaps you could link for me where Weigel writes about Sailer. I opened this by sharing info that you expressed interest in. Why would you withhold a link?

By the way, I’m leaving in about ten minutes, as I always do at this time of day.

Well, I only bothered to search Weigel’s site a minute ago. Which you should have done ages ago yourself if you weren’t merely concern trolling.

Here’s just one.
daveweigel.com
Have a nice night.

239 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:09:39pm

re: #237 wrenchwench

For the snark impaired: Yes, that post is snark.

240 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:11:03pm

Here’s another:
daveweigel.com
Have fun.

241 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:16:00pm

re: #237 wrenchwench

“He’s not Barrett Brown” is a smear? I’m sure Mr. Brown will be amused.

Now you are trying to play stupid. You know very well that the way you put it insinuated that there was something amiss about his character, or views.

The “hangs out with” part is documented. There are the photos on RS McCain’s site, and the Tweet. Hanging out on the internet counts. The Tweet was social. The party was social.

The “hangs out ” bit is disputed as it suggest a purely social interest. I asked “Do you have anything to suggest that Wiegels interest is not journalistic?” And you came back with nothing.

And as I said, Christopher Hitchens “hangs out” with McCain and other religious nuts. Why aren’t you concern trolling atheists regarding that? Should they be worried about Mr Hitchens ‘disturbing behaviour’?

Perhaps you could link for me where Weigel writes about Sailer. I opened this by sharing info that you expressed interest in. Why would you withhold a link?

Perhaps you should do some proper research yourself- say 5 minutes worth, before trying to smear people?

242 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:17:21pm

re: #238 iceweasel

Well, I only bothered to search Weigel’s site a minute ago. Which you should have done ages ago yourself if you weren’t merely concern trolling.

Here’s just one.
[Link: daveweigel.com…]
Have a nice night.

Thanks. I admit I am bad at searching. I read that one, and I will look for more to confirm his attitude.

He really shouldn’t have that link on his page, but I’ll withdraw the suggestion that he did it because he supports Sailer.

I did not go after him with any other agenda than to figure out where he’s coming from. I started after seeing the party photos. Not concern trolling.

Thanks for the links. No thanks for the downdings.

243 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:17:44pm

re: #241 Jimmah

And you came back with nothing.

Perhaps you should do some proper research yourself- say 5 minutes worth, before trying to smear people?

That’s because she has nothing. Except concern trolling and an agenda against DW for some reason. This conversation has made it quite clear.

244 Tigger2005  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:18:19pm

Well, it’s true. We don’t have the means to “destroy the planet.” A giant asteroid slamming into it millions of years ago didn’t destroy it, so a nuclear war definitely won’t do it, nor will climate change.

What we do have the ability to do is render much of the planet basically uninhabitable for humans and animals. But hey, once our population is reduced by a few billion, and hundreds or thousands of animal species go instinct, the planet will repair itself in a few thousand years (a blink of an eye in cosmic time), and new species will evolve by a few hundred thousand to a million years later.

245 iceweasel  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:18:38pm

re: #242 wrenchwench

Thanks. I admit I am bad at searching. I read that one, and I will look for more to confirm his attitude.

He really shouldn’t have that link on his page, but I’ll withdraw the suggestion that he did it because he supports Sailer.

I did not go after him with any other agenda than to figure out where he’s coming from. I started after seeing the party photos. Not concern trolling.

Thanks for the links. No thanks for the downdings.

In that case I’ll take your word for it.

Until later— and you’re very welcome.

246 grumpy old codger  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:19:35pm

Gee, what is worse? A belief in creationism or a belief in global warming? Recent comments re the mountaineer’s guide comment and the student thesis re global warming cast a lot of doubt on AGW. I could not accept creation as a literal, but perhaps as an allegorical comment re the creation of life (Maybe the Big G understands that we can’t/couldn’t accept creation as a fact.) As some one quotes Camus, on a different site, states, “I’d rather live my life as if there is a God, than live it as if there is no God and find out I’m wrong”. Smell the coffee yet?

247 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:21:35pm

re: #242 wrenchwench

Thanks for the links. No thanks for the downdings.

“Ok teach, I accept that my homework was lousy, ill researched and simply incorrect. However, I must take exception to your giving it a poor mark.”

248 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:23:07pm

re: #241 Jimmah

Not playing stupid.

Nothing journalistic about that tweet.

No reason to “concern troll” atheists. I am one, BTW.

re: #243 iceweasel

That’s because she has nothing. Except concern trolling and an agenda against DW for some reason. This conversation has made it quite clear.

Maybe not so clear, if your next post is sincere.

Later. You guys can tag-team me again tomorrow.

249 Tigger2005  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:31:13pm

re: #246 grumpy old codger

“I’d rather live my life as if there is a God, than live it as if there is no God and find out I’m wrong”. Smell the coffee yet?

What does it mean to “live your life as if there is no God?” To you, does that automatically mean living a “sinful” life? Actually, one can live quite a moral and ethical life without believing in God. There actually are other, very good reasons to behave morally and ethically besides “God told me to” or “God will punish me if I don’t.”

On the other hand, I see plenty of believers and so-called “guardians of public morality” who think nothing of lying through their teeth and engaging in all kinds of sleazy, unethical behavior. Look at the despicable shenanigans that went on around creating that dishonest film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” Or the quote mining, misrepresentations and distortions used to attack evolution or “back up” the claim that the U.S. is a “Christian nation.” It’s OK to lie, apparently, as long as you’re lying for God.

250 Baboon Cheeks  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:39:50pm

re: #248 wrenchwench

Not playing stupid.

Nothing journalistic about that tweet.

Was there anything journalistic about Hitchens reported drink and joke with McCain? Yet somehow, we feel, journalism and not ideological convergence is the underlying reason for both, given the writings and expressed opinions of Mr Weigel and Mr Hitchens.

And if you’re not playing stupid then in this argument at least you are genuinely being stupid. The point about concern trolling atheists was rhetorical. Again, stupid or merely playing at it - your choice.

I’m so sorry you feel tag teamed. Try answering a dozen foaming wingnuts at once, as ice, myself, Ludwig and other liberal posters regularly find ourselves having to do, and then come back to me with your tale of woe. This is an open forum and no one is guaranteed the luxury of talking always to one person at a time.

One last point, in reference to your statement :

Thanks. I admit I am bad at searching. I read that one, and I will look for more to confirm his attitude.

So, you have absolutely nothing, but you’ll continue looking. Despite that all his written work and his whole career is dedicated to exposing extremism and racism on the right. That’s why you’re a concern troll.

251 oldegeezr  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:40:11pm

re: #233 theheat

Being an amateur ornithologist of sorts, I totally agree.

Baby birds, without exception, always defecate into their nests; however, Momma and Papa bird always remove the offending immature offerings…This allows the nest to remain a healthy environment for the rising of their offspring.

This simple, natural, example might contain a lesson for us all…?

Could Rush… possibly represent the ignorant, self indulgent juveniles and George the wizened, knowledgeable parents…?

Interesting…!

252 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 2, 2010 5:47:33pm

Is this the same god that let him become a drug addict? nah. couldn’t be. Not that god.

253 Varek Raith  Wed, Feb 3, 2010 5:42:42am

re: #246 grumpy old codger

Good point, I shall pray to Amaterasu…or Shiva… or Zeus or…ah, hell which one?
/smell the sarcasm?

254 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 3, 2010 8:26:49am

re: #246 grumpy old codger

Gee, what is worse? A belief in creationism or a belief in global warming? Recent comments re the mountaineer’s guide comment and the student thesis re global warming cast a lot of doubt on AGW. I could not accept creation as a literal, but perhaps as an allegorical comment re the creation of life (Maybe the Big G understands that we can’t/couldn’t accept creation as a fact.) As some one quotes Camus, on a different site, states, “I’d rather live my life as if there is a God, than live it as if there is no God and find out I’m wrong”. Smell the coffee yet?

Except that forgets that whole evidence and data from thousands of independent sources thing and replaces verified science with the rantings of right wing anti-science propaganda sites which you breathlessly quote as if they are relevant and don’t even say what you think the problem is….

Where do idiots like you come from?

Let me lay out some rules for you since you are willing to be so mnd numbingly stupid.

A science conversation starts and ends with data and analysis. Merely saying thus and such is true or not true unless it has been well established, does not count as science. Claiming that you heard from somewhere some report about AGW given by mountaineers was false, does not constitute science. It is hearsay, and you did not even bother to say what was heard.

So again, I will see your unsubstantiated rumor, smear and smug stupidity, spoken as it it had any meaning and raise you the world wide scientific community and all of their data and observations backed up by modern physics.

Your move idiot.

255 Pete(Detroit)  Wed, Feb 3, 2010 8:44:34pm

I have heard this off and on from Rush over time (yes, I’m a listener) and sad to say, it’s not the most troublesome thing I’ve hear him say (not understanding that the “propeller” is the “turbine” part of “wind turbine” is on the top 5)
So, he’s a blow hard, and a buffoon, and any of his “opinions” should be duly considered as the “opinions” of a blow hard, and a buffoon.

He is, however, fairly politically astute, In My Arrogant Opinion
(see above, on the validity of opinions)


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 89 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 258 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1