Limbaugh, Beck Ask: Did White House Entrap Breitbart?

July 23rd, 2010 at 9:02 am | 49 Comments |

| Print

Media Matters reports:

As Andrew Breitbart’s Shirley Sherrod smear dissolved, rather than blame Breitbart for posting the deceptive clip of her speech, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh ludicrously began speculating that he and the conservative media could have been the victim of a “set-up” that had been “orchestrated” by the White House.

On the July 22 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh derided the narrative of the Sherrod story in the media. He suggested that “[n]ow the template is, do you deserve a phone call from the President? The White House wanted you fired. The White House didn’t listen. The White House took it out of con – The White House is afraid of Fox News.” Limbaugh continued by claiming, “For all I know, the White House orchestrated this whole thing.”

Click here to read more.

Recent Posts by FrumForum News

49 Comments so far ↓

  • TerryF98

    For all I know you are a racist pig Mr Ru$h “Barak the magic negro” Limbaugh.

  • jg bennet

    once again it is classic projection so wing”NUT” is fitting

    Psychological projection is a form of defense mechanism in which someone attributes thoughts, feelings, and ideas which are perceived as undesirable to someone else. For example, someone who harbors racist ideas while believing that racism is socially undesirable might come to believe that a friend is racist, projecting his or her racism onto the other person. Projection may manifest in all kinds of ways, and while it may be a defense mechanism, it can also be very destructive.

  • nwahs

    It would appear Limbaugh doesn’t know what his sheep are writing. Many are still on the right wing blogs commenting that Sherrod is indeed a Marxist and a racist, and the reaction of the crowd was racist.

    The only people who set this up are the entertainers who have made it dapper to be stupid.

  • andydp

    Let me see how this worked:

    A decidedly “conservative” organization led by Mr Breibart releases a heavily edited video purporting to show racism by a black person.
    “Conservative” news people jump on the bandwagon and scoriate Ms Sherrod, demand her resignation etc etc.
    White House and DofAg demand and get resignation.
    24 hours later, (even less than that) the entire tape is shown, and Ms Sherrod comes out smelling like a rose.

    THEREFORE the entire conservative media was set up…

    1984 anyone ?

    I sincerely hope Ms Sherrod sues Mr Breibart for everything he has. THAT is the only thing people like Breibart understand – losing their money. BTW even if “malice” is not proved it will cost Mr Breibart a lot of money to get legal counsel…

  • jg bennet

    and rush the non racist says….
    “This is about the continuing smearing of great patriotic Americans which is all the left has left to do,” Limbaugh declared. “There’s no racism in the Tea Party. They don’t have racist signs.”

    “This regime is tribalizing this country,” he said. “They are dividing this country. It’s not just enough to say that they are dividing us. They are tribalizing this country. We aren’t Americans anymore. We’re all members of different racial tribes, and we are to be pitted against each other: Black Americans, White Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans. We’re all being divided up racially, by tribes.”

    Read more:

  • LFC

    And the right-wing whiny little bitches come out in force with a persecution complex big enough to land the Space Shuttle on. What a bunch of perpetual victims.

  • franco 2

    Media Matters…Obermann…you REALLY think you have any credibility with conservatives? Phonies ALL OF YOU>

  • Watusie

    LOL, Media Matters gives a verbatim transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s nationally televised show and franco says “Media Matters? Well then, I can pretend it doesn’t exist!!”

  • antron

    If it was a setup, it worked like a charm. Sherrod looks like a saint. Her father was murdured by a racist white farmer, and now we see that she overcame that and actually helped someone she thought was a racist white farmer. Did you see her statement yesterday? She wants to forgive Breitbart, but they need to “find a place where that can happen”. She should run for office.

  • Fairy Hardcastle

    Not so sure she smells quite like a rose. In his apology remarks, BOR ran a pretty full clip of statements she made in March about advising a white farmer to get a lawyer of “his own kind.” BOR is right that if a white official made such a statement about a black farmer he would have been thrown out on his ear notwithstanding protestations of good intentions. Shouldn’t there be equivalency here? I guess it’s not surprise given that her boss is quite happy categorizing people as “typical white persons.”

  • easton

    franco real conservatives are interested in facts where ever they come from, fake conservatives like yourself only see things through this narrowminded mindset.

  • easton

    Fairy Hardcastle, I dunno about that. Sen. Byrd got redemption. If an older white person gave that exact same speech he would have been regarded pretty much the same way (though I doubt a white person would have been working for a charitable organization whose goals were to help poor people would have been racist)

  • Oldskool

    Shirley Sherrod should talk to Morris Dees. He bankrupted most of the Klan chapters. She could wind up owning Breitbart’s little empire.

  • jg bennet

    you know guys my grandfather gave up the kkk back in the 40′s when the “g-men showed up because they were stringing niggers up from trees” his actual quote via my father. what do you guys know about racism?? not much it seems…. i’m not a racist but because of my family i know the language and had my own enlightened moment that purged the ignorance out of me when i was young. the tea party at its core is racist guys it is obvious to someone who grew up speaking the language. what the right wing media has done is bring to the surface what i have known all along. racism is alive and well in white conservative america and the right wing media is turing sweet little old ladies into haters. limbaugh, dobbs, hannity, bauchmann, sessions, dick army and many many more all speak the same language my grandfather spoke. the words may be a bit more sophisticated now but the intent is the same. it is a language of insecurity masked by strength, a language of unity united by “common concerns” and above all a language of fear to scare the masses and bring them on board the good ship crackerpop. this is serious business man and until somebody with real balls from the conservative power circles grabs their short and curlies, steps up and call these bigots what they are it will only get worse. the sad part about all of this is it is generational, look at all the kids at the tea party rallies. this whole “take our government back” argument is not about the constitution, our forefathers or socialism it is about white power. limbaugh might as well be wearing a hood and conservative politicians and millions of listeners let him get away with it. why? because they want him and his ilk to win and if they do win the white folk get to keep their place in line at the cultural trough.

  • Diomedes

    Yup, you got us there conservatives. All a big setup by Obama a.k.a. Emperor Palpatine to orchestrate an effective and brilliantly executed smear against conservative media and pundits. Kind of like when Bush pulled off 9/11 and got off scott free.

    And smurfs were responsible for the Reichstag fire. Did you know that?

  • jg bennet

    my father also murdered a homosexual, he said he beat his brains out and kept “braining” him until his feet quit wiggling. i got told that when i was 17. so this whole social conservative crap i have a huge problem with because i know the dark side, the real underbelly of what these people think and it in a word it is evil.
    According to prominent American psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, an evil person
    Is consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection
    Deceives others as a consequence of their own self-deception
    Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets, scapegoating others while appearing normal with everyone else (“their insensitivity toward him was selective”)
    Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of others
    Abuses political (emotional) power (“the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion”
    Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
    Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
    Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim
    Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury

  • SkepticalIdealist

    RE: Fairy Hardcastle

    Bill O’Reilly’s new criticisms are boneheaded and repeat the same mistake that started this mess in the first place. When Sherrod spoke about the white farmer being more comfortable with his own kind, she was speaking in the past tense about what she thought 20+ years ago, and not necessarily what she feels now.

    Furthermore, I’m not sure how valid the notion is that every comment a black person makes should be flipped and considered through the lens of what would’ve happened if a white person said it, as if blacks and whites have been treated as equals all along and their roles are interchangeable in American history. Whites feel they have a lower margin of error in addressing race issues, but that’s not necessarily true. Look at how the media reacted to Obama’s comments on the Henry Louis Gates incident, or how quickly the White House fired Shirley Sherrod. Nevertheless, the conservative movement feels very aggrieved over race, where they are “sick of apologizing” for slavery, segregation, institutionalized discrimination, Jim Crow, opposing interracial marriage, and so on. But the problem is that so many of them want to be able speak on race without taking this wider context into account.

  • busboy33

    Story #1) Obama Administration is out to get the Good White Folk by hiring racisits and executing racist policies. Obama is Teh Debil!

    Story #2) Obama Administration abused Executive power by working behind the scenes to order Vilsack to fire Sherrod, who was misrepresented in story #1. Obama is Teh Debil!

    Story #3) Obama PLANNED Stories 1 and 2 to make the Far Right look like rabid maniacs, because how else could the good Far Right have been so eager to believe something that wasn’t true? Obama is Teh Debil!

    Well, at least they’re consistent.

  • Cforchange

    Not matter what isn’t RL admitting to collective stupidity? He should be frothing at the mouth but this should be in private and directed only at himself and his comrades.

    I’ve heard it said that you can’t fool an honest man.

  • DirtyLibrul

    Well goodness me, if Limbaugh and Beck are asking this question there must be something to it. I suggest the media do a penetrating expose and see how deep this conspiracy is! I mean, for the Whitehouse to take it to the length of actually firing her and making them all look like fools just to make it look real…is well, it’s amazing.

    *STOP LISTENING TO THESE A$$HATS! If Obama’s noesocialistbolshevik government was this good at pulling off such a carefully orchestrated Oceans 11 type plot then don’t you think we’d have real universal healthcare and real Wall Street reform by now? Oh, and the FEMA camps, those would have happened by now too…amazing.

  • bamboozer

    Limbaugh should do the Bump with Chris Christie and see if an earthquake ensues. Or just keep making a fool of himself and those who listen to him.

  • anniemargret

    Limbaugh is an overpaid over-profiled agitator .

    He is not a patriot. He wants division and not unity. He really doesn’t believe in the “United” States of America. He is absurd as he is foul. The GOP should drop all pretense of honoring a bigot and mysognist and calling him one of theirs.

  • Slide

    jg bennet I agree with everything you said. The fact that you used personal experiences to illustrate your reasoning must not have been easy. I appreciate you’re willingness to do so.

    All this craziness on the right (secession, 2nd Amendment remedies, taking our country back, the Hitler references, the Stalin references, the wearing of sidearms at Presidential appearances, the spitting on Congressman, the willful distortion of facts by supposed news organizations, the race baiting, the voting down of the Unemployment extension… all of it, has an undertone of race. Obama. He is black you see and that drives some people absolutely fucking crazy. Period.

  • WillyP

    jg bennett,
    If you’re so used to racism, and so familiar with hate, then perhaps you can enlighten me as to how Rush Limbaugh can remain friends with Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Clarence Thomas. If the same hatred of the lynch mob is at the core of Limbaugh’s beliefs, then how does he allow himself their company?

    Still more perplexing is why, to my knowledge, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Clarence Thomas have not denounced Rush Limbaugh. They’re all powerful, influential people. If he wanted to, Clarence Thomas would only have to open his mouth to set the conservative political class against Rush Limbaugh.

    I don’t know if your stories are true, but your claimed understanding of hatred and its depths doesn’t seem to hold much water.

    And if you mean to suggest that “social conservative” is a code word for “racist” or “bigot” or “hater,” then you’re basically accusing more than half of this country of being completely disgusting people, unworthy of much respect at all. Are religious people haters, by default? Are traditionalists haters because they strongly disapprove of certain (race-independent) behavior?

    How do I know that I’m not, deep down, a very hateful, angry, and destructive person? Is the only innocent personality that of a licentious liberal?

  • WillyP

    Thomas Sowell is somewhat of a national expert on the history of racism, and the history of race in general. Here is a man who would surely understand how it really is… and what did he say?

    “In more recent years, I can’t bear to watch most of the talk shows on television, and on radio I listen only to Rush Limbaugh and a couple of others. ”

    see here:×457700

    And it’s worth mentioning that Clarence Thomas grew up under the Jim Crow laws in Georgia. I think we can safely assume that he possesses the insight to recognize racist hatred. Thomas officiated Rush’s 3rd marriage. (Yes, I realize he’s not the poster child for marriage…)

    Walter Williams, of course, serves as Rush’s guest host now and the.

    Frankly, Limbaugh is not a racist. He’s just a real conservative, which drives you pseudo-conservatives insane.

  • anniemargret

    Stop my beating heart……how impressive for Limbaugh. He’s got three black friends who haven’t called out his racism, or refuse to associate with someone who has clearly mocked black Americans. Go figure.

    One cannot fully explain their lack of concern or commentary on this subject. They are entitled to their reasons. However, millions of other blacks do. Millions of whites do as well. Something to that, donja think?

    Limbaugh may not be racist, (who knows what’s true in his heart) but then again, when you sound like one, most people will think you are…and the old adage ‘if it walks like a duck….’ rings true.

    It appears to many that the GOP is predominantly white & Christian for a reason. Perhaps it has something to do with its policies? Perhaps because the preponderance of anti-black or minority barbs come from that party and its members? Or like Limbaugh, their revered talking heads?

    And want to know why Limbaugh is not highly regarded other than his fan base? Perhaps it has something to do with his pseudo-interest in conservatism or anything else. Perhaps because his mockery is really quite borderline nasty, crude, vulgar and oft times downright nasty, rude and vulgar. If this is ‘true conservatism’ you can keep it.

    Limbaugh’s out for Limbaugh, or haven’t you figured out that yet? We liberals sure have.

  • WillyP

    “You Liberals” suck.
    “We Conservatives” like Rush Limbaugh.

  • WillyP

    and annie,
    it’s worth considering that the vast, vast majority of black people are Christians. Not too many black atheist groups I can think of…

  • jakester

    The old “pull a conspiracy out of the hat to explain it all” trick.

  • drdredel


    I’m not sure what manner of “sucking” you’re talking about… but if it’s the kind I think you’re talking about, then by god, I’m SO going with the Liberals.

  • drdredel

    “Are religious people haters, by default?”

    Umm… yeah… pretty much. I mean… many of them struggle to refrain from acting on the more hateful doctrines that their gods instruct them to follow, but the way it works is this:
    The more religious you are (meaning the closer you stick to your god’s definition of how to properly live your life) the more likely you are to be a violent, hateful, anti-human, sociopath. The less you pay attention to the gibberish in said dogmas, the more likely you are to be a rational, peaceful, loving, human being.

    It’s a fairly simple calculus.
    Here’s an example:
    Shrimp are yummy, as are pigs. God (I presume this the god you believe in Willy, I apologize if I’m mistaken) would like you to stone to death people who eat shrimp and pigs.

    If you’re religious, you do as you’re told and subsequently engage in murder (or wish to) every time you leave your home and encounter packaged meat (or the sight of people consuming it).

    If you’re not religious you enjoy the yummy.

    Which of these two groups would you say are “haters by default”?

  • WillyP

    well at least the truth comes out. the libs really are anti-God and anti-tradition

  • drdredel


    I speak only for myself. Just as you speak only for yourself.

    As for God and tradition, I think (and I challenge you to say something that proves me wrong) that any tradition (or God) that demands of its followers that they stone one another to death for things like eating shrimp, is one that any sane person has no choice but to be against.
    Thus you must fall into one of three categories (and again, I urge you to furnish a fourth if you can).

    1) one who rejects said dogma as the bullshit that it is
    2) one who picks and chooses which of God’s laws one will actually obey and which she will just ignore because they are inconvenient (as far as the dogma is concerned this is the very definition of heresy)
    3) one who is insane and simply obeys the stuff unquestioned since it was written by God.

    Since the laws of God and the laws of the United States stand in irreconcilable contradiction to one another, it is therefore impossible for you to choose 3 and stay out of prison (or the electric chair). So, you’re forced to exist within 1 or 2. I choose 1 because it seems to me that even if I believed in the god of the Bible, I would decide that rather than picking and choosing which of my god’s laws to ignore (thus provoking his wrath and having him give me testicular cancer), it makes more sense to just decide that I’ll ignore the whole document and this god as non-existent, and then, hopefully, he simply will not notice me, and I will retain both my balls, intact.

    Oh, and my username is drdredel, not drdreden. See… it’s a play on Dr.Dre and the Jewish Channukah toy “The Dreidel”. Making me into a jewish hip hop sensation! (or something like that).

  • LauraNo


    About half of my family are conservatives and the other half is all over the map. What I know about the conservative ones is that they are racists. I don’t need the NAACP to tell me that and I don’t care what Ann Coulter or anyone else says in trying to deny there are racists in the tea party. And yes, I think every one of my family members who I consider to be conservative are nowadays tea party supporters. This is why it’s a waste of time for republicans/ conservatives/ GOP/ tea party people to go around calling other people racist in an effort to deflect attention on their racism. We all know racists in our lives and we know they are overwhelmingly conservative. This is not to say there are no democrats who are racist, just that I don’t personally no any.

  • anniemargret

    willyP: One of the great things about being a liberal, is that we have a big tent. Drdredel may be a liberal, but he doesn’t speak for me about religion or God. He states that clearly. I have in all my years as a registered liberal Democrat never met anyone of similar persuasion who made me feel like I had to leave the party because I still believe in God, as I understand it now in my life.

    I have left much of the dogmatic religion that I was used to as child, and now am still on my lifelong spiritual journey, which was based in Christian thought of love, peace and forgiveness and a more inclusive view of humanity and universe… so I guess at this point in time I would call myself a Unitarian, or Deist. I cannot embrace an angry, vengeful god…. The God I believe in and hope for is one of utter forgiveness. But I still search for meaning and my life is still a spiritual journey.

    How can I judge someone else’s view of the world? It may be their path and it may be right to them. If they are not harming me or the world, or others, then it is not incumbent upon me to persuade them differently.

    This is one of the very distinct ways in which Republicanism and Democrats today diverge. Republicanism is now almost exclusively Christian . The dogmatic, proselytizing religion of Christianity is now in charge of Republican politics. They seek to convert . They seek to intertwine Christian beliefs into political thought. They want to ‘Christianize” the government – do away with separation of church and state.

    This scares me witless. It is not only insulting to the individual, it can lead to religious fascism.

    Democrats do not do this. They find that separation of church and state both meaningful and precious to our freedom.

    Democrats are very tolerant of divergent thought. It is aimed at social justice, which is actually Jesus’ most important message – ironically- and they are interested in progress and a more inclusive view of the world. Less war, more peace. Less intolerance, more understanding.

    And your comment that because Drdredel obviously dislikes religious dogma means that ALL Democrats or liberals feel the same is totally, utterly wrong. He is one of many who shares his views and I can live with that. But there are many, many Democrats who believe in God as well.

    So don’t ascribe the Some/All fallacy here.
    PS: Sorry this it overly long… thanks for reading this far.

  • drdredel


    I suspect this goes without saying, but I hope you understand that my position is in no way critical of taking various philosophies (regardless of their source) and incorporating them into whatever personal belief system you have.

    I’m deeply in favor of curiosity as a practice applied to every aspect of life, which most certainly includes the search for both personal happiness, as well as the search for the deeper meaning of existence. Personally, I have a very large bag of potential ideas that I pull from to keep my imagination satisfied. I just don’t believe that god writes books, or visits the earth in the form of bulls, or hippies.

    I’m a huge fan of Sam Harris (and have linked to a couple of his lectures in previous posts). Until I discovered him, I was, like most western intellectuals, predisposed to the notion of moral ambiguity. The idea that everyone’s personal beliefs are to be valued evenly and that within the realm of secular speculation, there is no valid position of judgment from which to decree that one person’s point of view is more valid than another’s.

    However, Harris has convinced me that this is not a rational approach. I now agree with him that it is, in fact, extremely easy to evaluate morality, strictly from a position of “how does this measure on the scale of human suffering” and decree, with certainty, that A is good and B is bad… in absolute, objective terms. Here’s his lecture at TED where he makes this argument… it’s only about 20 minutes.

    There is no reason to pretend that we don’t know whether it is good to allow women that cheat on their husbands to be stoned to death. We know it is wrong with every fiber of our being.

    Obviously I applaud your embracing of a god that is rooted in “utter forgiveness”. I worship at this god’s alter as well (when his presence is needed/convenient).

    What strikes me as a schism (and one that is starting to tear at the fabric of this nation) is the evolution of thought by people like yourself. People who have come to realize that the dogma in the Bible is simply irreconcilable with the god that you WANT to believe in.
    The more you read the more you say “why would anyone want to worship THIS creature?! It’s self absorbed, narcissistic, petulant, vengeful, irrational, and by any measure of modern psychiatry a borderline personality, frequently prone to signs of outright schizophrenia!

    Then you start to research the historical origins of the texts and you find yourself in Babylonian mythology and you say… why am I worshiping a Babylonian god?? Thor is a lot more recent and has a really nifty hammer to boot! I should build him a small shrine and see if I can make it rain more often by giving it offerings of herring and an occasional meatball in cream sauce.

    sorry… when I say “you” I mean me :)

    Anyway… I’m getting too long winded here, but I just wanted to make sure that I don’t come off as a dogmatic atheist that seeks to call people who believe in the unprovable “idiots”. I just want to make sure that so long as something is, in fact, unprovable, it doesn’t make its way into our body of laws, and it would make me very happy if significantly less of our fellow citizens had such strong convictions about the impending end of the world, or at least if they could cite more than 1 source for their convictions! (how unscientific is THAT!?).

  • anniemargret

    drdredel: not to worry…. I truly do respect other’s beliefs and/or non-beliefs. I have never believed that life metes out the same deck of cards to everyone . Yes I read Sam Harris as well. He is a thoughtful man who obviously has come to a place where religious belief is anathema to him. So did Mark Twain!

    But I also believe his ‘beliefs’ are unprovable as well as religious peoples. In the end, I think, we choose what we want to believe or disbelieve. I was raised RC and that deep religious understanding is not something I can shake off easily…nor do I want to. It often helps me guide through this difficult life. I embrace that part of it while at the same time reject that which doesn’t make sense.

    I’ve also read Harold Kushner and F. Forrester Church….

    I also dabbled in embracing atheism….but it wasn’t for me. I couldn’t convince myself that there is no Source…no Divine Presence in seems to be too empty emotionally. My personal feeling about God is almost all instinctive… But that doesn’t mean others feel the same.

    We are all on a journey and there are no easy answers. I think there is an evolution of thought for people however they search for meaning. I also understand that pain and suffering can snuff out any belief. There is nothing wrong in believing in God – it gives life meaning and sustenance. There is nothing wrong with not believing in God – some of the greatest & most humane people in the world are atheists.

    So I sure do not have any answers. The only thing I do know is that life is still a mystery..not easily explained with rationality, nor easily explained with fire and brimstone. Perhaps this is the way it ought to be….

    So no… you don’t come off as a dogmatic atheist. You have your own understanding and you discard the old notion of the brimstone God of the OT. I understand that…I have as well. Doesn’t fit with my worldview anymore. At the same time, I can’t go to atheism since it doesn’t fill the hole inside my head and heart. Somewhere there is something else….

    Good luck! I say that to everyone. Human beings must struggle with so much and that is why I try not to mock anyone else’s idea of life. The only thing that bothers me (and probably you as well) is a political system that has brought religious dogma and ‘God talk” into it. This is present-day Republicanism and I reject it. They’ve got a box now and everyone that goes in their direction must be neatly in that box.

    The fact that so many of their politicians feel the need to make sure everyone knows they are ‘Christian’ is absurd . Absurd because the Founding Fathers were running the other way – to religious freedom, not to be bound in a political viewpoint that forces someone to confine oneself to one religious belief, or be considered out of place, out of bounds, or worse. Also absurd because simply calling oneself a “Christian’ doesnt make a person any better or worse than anyone else of different religious persuasion, or non-persuasion. Can a Jew be President of the U.S.? In this overt religious climate in politics, I doubt it.

    Rovian politics….bad stuff. Live and let live. There are so many humanitarians all over the world trying to right the wrongs and sacrifice their own needs to help others. That to me, is what it’s all about.

    I’ll leave (after writing WAY too much) one last thought. I’ve always like F. Forrester Church’s idea that “religion is the human response to being alive and having to die.” I also like his ‘Windows on the World’ essay as well.

  • msmilack

    jg bennett

    It was hard to read your stories so I can only imagine how hard it was to live them. It was brave of you to share them.

  • drdredel

    @ anniemargret

    Obviously we’re on the same page… I just wanted to note that I don’t think of myself as an atheist (and in this nation, it’s the atheist that would have the *hardest time getting into office; Jews don’t do too badly, so long as they mention how important the Sabbath is to them (not the Dio years though… just the stuff with Ozzy).

    I am all in favor of searching for deeper meaning and of course it would be lovely to learn that death is not the end. What I reject is not specifically the God of the old testament (in fact, I enjoy reading about his antics as a very satisfying source of comedic relief) but the entire text… but only because I’m fairly well versed (albeit recreationally as I don’t have a degree in either religious history or theology) in the manner in which these texts came about.

    Everything that is in our Bible comes, in some very slightly altered form, from the mythology of Egypt. It’s purely an accident of history that we aren’t all worshiping Zeus, but instead are all praying at the alter of (a slightly modified and arguably ass-holyfied [I'm coining that]) Horus.

    Now I’m all in favor of the love and forgiveness and general sense of gratitude towards the universe that many characters in the Bible convey… most notably, Jesus (in at least Thomas’ and Luke’s gospels… in John he’s a little bit of a self righteous prick). But I can believe in that (as well as all sorts of other truly magical things) without any assistance from the Egyptians, plus, it prevents me from having to feel awkward about eating ham (which I must say I do love, with a bit of spicy mustard and a really juicy tomato on some toasted sour dough bread).

    The FF Church quote is a very nice one. Thanks for that.

  • anniemargret

    drdredel: You’re a hoot!

    And yes…. I did know about Egyptian mythology and some of the Bible stories. I think the Bible is allegorical and there is a lot of truth there, and some of it is nonsense. So I don’t take it so literally. In fact, as I mentioned, for me belief in a Source, God, is mostly instinctive, since I’ve been thinking about all this since I was 7.

    Still looking, still reading, still listening…

    Of course, much of the near-death research shows that there is a non-local consciousness, and if you are not religiously inclined, you can at least appreciate that, in a strictly scientific view. I do believe the spirit moves on, and our bodies house the spirit. For the life of me (!) I cannot think that we are just all a mass of jumbled atoms which just happened to come together to form a body. I think we have a soul.

    So there…. my deep pondering thought of the day. And now, I’m heading to sleep because your ham and tomato with mustard sandwich is making me hungry and I don’t want to think about it.

  • WillyP

    FF has actually turned into a place where liberals now kiss each others’ asses. You’re bonding over your deeply held beliefs that 1) You’re not racists 2) Rush Limbaugh is REALLY a racist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    White guilt, anyone?

    Someone should save this thread and put it out to the broader conservative blogging community. It’s amusing.

  • anniemargret

    WillyP: aw c’mon…. lighten up.

    btw….Rush is doing the GOP no favors.

  • WillyP

    I should lighten up: agreed.

    Still, it was ass kissing,
    and still, for people who spend this much time debating politics, I’d think there was a little more urgency seeing the direction the country is heading.

    I don’t understand why everybody is worried about Rush Limbaugh is “really” a racist. The evidence strongly says no.

    What we can say about Rush Limbaugh is that he’s genuinely concerned for his country and speaking his mind lucidly. It would be nice to stop ankle-biting at Rush, and drive the anti-Democrat message home strongly. It is apparent that few people here recognize the tell tale signs of tyranny.

  • busboy33


    “I don’t understand why everybody is worried about Rush Limbaugh is ‘really’ a racist. The evidence strongly says no.”

    “Everybody” is worried because for the other half of the population, the evidence strongly says yes. That means we’re not dealing with the same reality. One of us is wrong on how they are looking at the objective data and evaluating it. Heck, both sides might be wrong (a very strong possibility).

    But definitely, absolutely, both sides can’t both be right. People are concerned about Rush because the discussion is a discussion over the different realities. The Rush defender cannot and will not see any racism in anything he says, and the Rush haters can’t hear his racist crap and think its not racist. That is a problem for us as a functioning soicety.

    Think of it like the shilouette targets at a shooting range. It can be shaped like a mugger, or it can be shaped like a little girl with a balloon. If I point to a target and say “that’s mugger, shoot” and you say “no, its a little girl, dammit don’t you shoot” then we have a major problem. This isn’t some theoretical discussion . . . this is a topic that can, and arguably does, lead to people suffering and dying. This isn’t “who’s better, the Red Sox or the Yankees?”, this is “Do we cut the red or blue wire to difuse the bomb?”

    The issue isn’t whether he is or isn’t racist, but what is acceptable and what is unacceptable at a very fundamental level. He’s the topic because he is fameous and as this is a policy/philosophy/political/societal discussion he is specifically fameous the most with this crowd.

    “What we can say about Rush Limbaugh is that he’s genuinely concerned for his country and speaking his mind lucidly.”

    And I’m sure he’s kind to puppies too. Completely irrevelant to the discussion.

  • anniemargret

    Here’s a serious tone:

    I’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh. He has, at times, made some sense. But his overall strategy is to to divide and conquer. He is basically, a highly paid political agitator.

    Like Palin, Beck, Bachmann, etc… his purpose is to get their troops angry and frustrated, by distorting facts, gross insults, character assassination, and staying as very nearly close to the edge of racial and ethnic (and mysognist) slurs as possible. They are not there to unite the country in the hopes of solving problems, so to me, they are not patriots, but self-serving agitators. I find nothing worthy of what they have to say.

    “Barack the Magic Negro” is offensive and clearly racist (Limbaugh). “Obama was a racist who had a deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture. (Beck) Obama ‘pals around with terrorists’ (Palin) “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.” & the Obama administration is a “gangsta government”. (Bachmann)

    whoa…..what is to like there with these inflammatory comments? The fans of these agitators however, tell the rest of America that this is good/helpful/true/ when the reality is that this is entertainment/shock value to them, ignoring the possibility that the hate and fear-mongering might simmer and then boil over.

    Do their fans care about inflammatory rhetoric? Apparently not.

    Does the Republican party find these flame-throwers useful and helpful to put a better face on the party? So far, the answer is no.

  • anniemargret

    btw, WillyP: if you look more carefully at my discussion with Drdredel you will find we disagree to the max.

    We might share some liberal pov’s but basically he finds Christianity artificial and nonsensical. I do not share his views. I find true Christianity, the one Jesus preached about, love, peace, forgiveness, very helpful – as long as people understand that no one, No One, wants someone in their face prosyletizing, nor wants Christianity to be ‘America’s religion.’

    That flies in the face of a democracy, and comes too close for comfort to religious facism. And I can still be a Christian at heart, try to live by its tenets, but protect our religious freedom from the wannabe religious fascists.

    So let’s be clear here…he and I can disagree and we can agree. I don’t have to K— anyone’s A–!

  • WillyP

    Well I’m Catholic.

    I also don’t quite see the need to wax poetic about theology/theism/atheism when speaking about most political issues… the vast majority of my political beliefs can be justified from an agnostic position.

    Another problem with libs is that they torture and corrupt religion to justify their own political beliefs – i.e. the myth of compassionate government so as to redistribute wealth.

  • anniemargret

    WillyP: ” Another problem with libs is that they torture and corrupt religion to justify their own political beliefs – i.e. the myth of compassionate government so as to redistribute wealth.”

    Redistribute wealth…and then say you’re a Catholic? I am too, born and raised in the Catholic religion. My understanding of Christ’s teaching were about the poor and the needy. I don’t remember my religion talking about ‘redistribution of wealth.” My own understanding is that we are our brother’s keeper. It is not about me, myself and I. When I help others, I help myself and I honor all God’s children.

    I think it’s the other way around, Willy. I think the libertarian and conservative philosophies have all but abandoned any semblance of care and compassion. Their thrust to save the corporations at the expense of the working poor and middle class is obvious. Just look at the recent healthcare debate. It was all about costs. Nothing from the other side about how to help those in need, which of course, could happen to anyone, at any time. They shut their eyes to suffering, which is easy. Much harder to do the work of coming up with compromise to both lower costs and help those without as well.

    This country has always embraced both capitalism as well as social programs as a safety net. It has worked well so far. That safety net is vital to keeping our country becoming a Third World one, and I don’t have a problem with having my taxes raised to pay for wars/the needy/or the working class who now have had the bottom fall out from under their feet/ or for the thousands without any assistance to keep their families from ruin trying to pay medical bills. This to me, is all about what true Christianity is.

    I don’t know many Catholics corrupting religion. If they are joining the other fundamenalist Christians to ‘christianize the federal government” (as many of former Christian friends told me) they can keep that philosophy. I’m solidly for religious freedom, for any religion you wish to participate in, or not participate in.

    Most liberals I know want this. They abhor the religious rhetoric coming out of the Republican party because it smacks of fascism. That is something as Catholic you ought to be fearful of.

    Obvious you and I have extremely different world views. We will have to agree to disagree. There is no point in debating this impasse further.

  • WillyP

    if you were perhaps educated in economics you would understand that your support for government run “social programs” is counter productive and, in reality, accomplishes goals contrary to your intentions.

    as a Catholic, I believe it is my responsibility to grasp the reality of a situation as fully as possible before passing judgment on policy. you deny yourself a decent education in economics, and therefore doom yourself to destructive policy recommendations.

    true Christianity has nothing to do with taxes and social programs. what odd Church are you attending? being your brother’s keeper does not require a third party… in your case, government. it requires charity and awareness, but certainly not coercive taxes that are redistributed by bureaucracy. the entire history of civilization presents itself as based on private property and the consequent rising living standards. this is good news for all, not just some (as your policies would have it).

    i hate the term “world view” because it’s so banal, overused, and ultimately meaningless. i am a conservative politically, and a catholic religiously. i believe in the sanctity of property rights, and the importance of RESTRICTING government interference in the affairs of a free people. i never see liberals arguing for restraint. it’s only more more more government.

    how you and your fellow liberals sit around talking about more ways to seize property and redistribute wealth is utterly foreign to my way of thinking. when 44% of spending is government spending, we should be looking in the OPPOSITE direction… i.e., drastically and severely reducing the scope of government.

    spare me the sanctimony about fascism. fascism was a system of central planning and hardcore nationalism. it is the polar opposite of laissez-faire capitalism, which is indifferent to the location of capital and labor, and reduces the role of the nation-state to security.

    ah the misunderstandings abound… capitalism is not evil, but has been made out to be evil by the craven marxians.