XPost: alt.atheism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.democrats.d, al   
   .politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.politics   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.trump   
   From: bud_frowley2@aggregoat.con   
      
   On 2/18/2021 12:15 PM, Ted wrote:   
   > On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:06:20 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:   
   >> There are two reasons, and I think they are unconnected, but that   
   > requires some   
   >> elaboration.   
   >   
   >   
   >> The first is that he had a vile, foul, jaundiced disposition and   
   > outlook on the   
   >> world.  He was predisposed to see the worst in everyone with whom   
   > he disagreed.   
   >> He was constitutionally incapable of perceiving that people might   
   > disagree with   
   >> his views and preconceptions in good faith.  If anyone disagreed   
   > with his   
   >> /weltanschauung/ and core values, that person was just bad and not   
   > worthy of   
   >> engagement.  Limbaugh felt no qualms about dehumanizing such a   
   > person and   
   >> expressing scorn and hatred for him.   
   >   
   >   
   >> The second is that Limbaugh's conservatism was unearned.  Genuine   
   > conservatism   
   >> is attained through a process of maturation and learning about the   
   > world.   
   >> Limbaugh never did that.  His daddy — and first employer — was at   
   > least as   
   >> conservative as Limbaugh.  Limbaugh always wanted to be a "good   
   > boy" and never   
   >> challenged even a speck of his daddy's arch-conservative, racist   
   > dogma.  There's   
   >> a saying attributed to several, including Churchill:   
   >   
   >   
   >>     if at 20 you're not a socialist, you have not heart   
   >>     if at 40 (or 50) you're still a socialist, you have no brain   
   >   
   >   
   >> You don't have to be a socialist at 20, but you have *got* to   
   > challenge, and   
   >> even for a while reject, the reactionary status quo world view in   
   > which you were   
   >> indoctrinated as a youngster, or else you are not your own   
   > intellectual master —   
   >> ever.  Limbaugh never did.  Limbaugh always wanted to be a "good   
   > boy" and do   
   >> what he was told, and believe what he was told to believe (this is   
   > Hartung, too).   
   >   
   >   
   >> You cannot become a good-faith,   
   >> intellectually respectable conservative, like George Will or William Buckley   
   >> or James   
   >> Kilpatrick or Ross Douthat, if you never challenged your ultra-reactionary   
   >> upbringing as a young person and then learned — as you acquired a brain   
   — through   
   >> *experience* that left-wing values and views of the world are no good.   
   >> Limbaugh never   
   >> did that.  He couldn't have — he was too much a prisoner of his benighted   
   >> background.   
   >   
   >   
   > This is an example of one of the reasons I   
   > have such a high regard for you, Rudy.   
   > Thanks for sharing your brilliant insights   
   > with the rest of us.   
      
   Don't lay it on too thick, or it will go to his head.  But he's right about   
   this   
   one.  It is impossible to become a thinking conservative if you grow up in an   
   ultra-conservative household in a benighted shithole like Cape Girardeau, MO or   
   Starkville, MS.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)