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: douche@la-tech.edu   
      
   On 2/18/2021 2:45 PM, P+Barker wrote:   
   > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:24:53 -0800, Bud Frawley   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > What have you got against those cities?   
      
   They produce racist cocksuckers like Limbaugh and Hartung and Douche Weber and   
   you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)