Rush Limbaugh, the original American Idiot.

theclemsonkid

theclemsonkid

Member
Did anyone catch Mr. Limbaugh's latest rant? This time, he went after Pope for saying in his "Evangelii" that the "idolatry of money" would lead to a "new tyranny." The Pope also said "trickle-down economics, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."
So basically the Pope said you can't trust that people with all the money will to the right thing for everyone else. I can't imagine why the Pope would think that. Hmm...

More from the exchange:
"But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him," Limbaugh said. "This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope." He took particular issue with the Pope's criticism of the "culture of prosperity," which the pontiff called a "mere spectacle" for the many people who can't afford to participate.


Ratings must be slipping on the old EIB Radio network for him to stoop to calling the Pope a Marxist!
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Personally, I think Popes should stick to the Catholic religion and not delve into commentaries about political economics. The terminology he used "trickle down economics" along with the rest of his comments is a smack in the face to those who embrace pure capitalism. What exactly was the point of his comment? That money should be taken from the wealthy since it is crude and naive to trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power? Direct slam on capitalism. Obviously, that is going to draw the ire of conservatives.

He should practice what he preaches and give up the wealth of the Vatican, or at least take the Vatican distribution of funds collected from parishioners out of the hands of a few old men who make all the decisions.

Actually, governments wield the greatest economic power, so maybe the Pope has a valid point!
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

So I can only assume that this means you agree with Rush?
................................................................
Darth (drive by posting) tang
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot#post_3534940
Did anyone catch Mr. Limbaugh's latest rant? This time, he went after Pope for saying in his "Evangelii" that the "idolatry of money" would lead to a "new tyranny." The Pope also said "trickle-down economics, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."
So basically the Pope said you can't trust that people with all the money will to the right thing for everyone else. I can't imagine why the Pope would think that. Hmm...

More from the exchange:
"But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him," Limbaugh said. "This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope." He took particular issue with the Pope's criticism of the "culture of prosperity," which the pontiff called a "mere spectacle" for the many people who can't afford to participate.


Ratings must be slipping on the old EIB Radio network for him to stoop to calling the Pope a Marxist!

So what exactly would you call anyone who believes that people with money are not to be trusted and people should have the same exact things?
the pope's comments if not word for word sure do express the proletariat vs bourgeoisie straight out of the communist manifesto.
so Rush is just stating fact.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
It doesnt matter. Clemson didnt take the time to actually review the actual statement. He is going off a liberal blog writting about what limbaugh stated and placing it within a context to encite. Look at the quotes clemson placed. These are obviously from a blog or story and not taken from the Limbaugh transcript.
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
Well I just read chapter 2 of the Evangelli Gaudium and my interpretation wasn't quite as extreme as Rush`s. Actually I think the Pope brought up some pretty good points about economic inequality and its relation to cultures of violence.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot#post_3534940
Did anyone catch Mr. Limbaugh's latest rant? This time, he went after Pope for saying in his "Evangelii" that the "idolatry of money" would lead to a "new tyranny." The Pope also said "trickle-down economics, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."
So basically the Pope said you can't trust that people with all the money will to the right thing for everyone else. I can't imagine why the Pope would think that. Hmm...

More from the exchange:
"But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him," Limbaugh said. "This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope." He took particular issue with the Pope's criticism of the "culture of prosperity," which the pontiff called a "mere spectacle" for the many people who can't afford to participate.


Ratings must be slipping on the old EIB Radio network for him to stoop to calling the Pope a Marxist!
This boosted his rating significantly. How does that make him an idiot?
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
I saw the video of Rush's broadcast and read the Popes own words. Clearly Rush wants ratings. But to brand the Pope as a Marxist seemed pretty disrespectful to me. Especially the way people seem to throw it around like it's some kind of hate word.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot#post_3534963
Well I just read chapter 2 of the Evangelli Gaudium and my interpretation wasn't quite as extreme as Rush`s. Actually I think the Pope brought up some pretty good points about economic inequality and its relation to cultures of violence.
Pretty much slams free enterprise and calls upon governments to tow the line on what he considers the unethical and ungodly enslavement of the many have-nots by the few of those who have in societies. The terminology he used disparagingly is certainly a slam on conservative economic ideals in this country and when he calls on government to change all that its a strong indicator to me of a socialist mindset.

I think Rush was right on the money equating the Pope's statements to Marxist ideals. Now, saying that, religion itself is always going to promote that all people are treated equitably and that no one suffer, go hungry, etc., for lack of money, especially where others seem to lack for nothing. However, even Jesus recognized that there will always be poor in the world. The Pope is not a good student of history if he thinks he is living in the worst of times in terms of modern societies not being generous to those in need. No other time in the history of humanity have societies come to the needs of others as we do now. Also, in terms of Western civilization, no other institution horded more wealth then did the Vatican--and much of that wealth is still there. Will the Pope now disperse that wealth to the needy? I say rule by example.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
If you define pure capitalism as what Adam Smith described when he first proposed such a thing, then the Pope wasn't far off. Smith called for those who benefitted most from capitalism to undertake exceptional responsibility for those who have not been so fortunate.
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
Pretty much slams free enterprise and calls upon governments to tow the line on what he considers the unethical and ungodly enslavement of the many have-nots  by the few of those who have in societies.  The terminology he used disparagingly is certainly a slam on conservative economic ideals in this country and when he calls on government to change all that its a strong indicator to me of a socialist mindset.
I think Rush was right on the money equating the Pope's statements to Marxist ideals.  Now, saying that, religion itself is always going to promote that all people are treated equitably and that no one suffer, go hungry, etc., for lack of money, especially where others seem to lack for nothing.  However, even Jesus recognized that there will always be poor in the world.  The Pope is not a good student of history if he thinks he is living in the worst of times in terms of modern societies not being generous to those in need.  No other time in the history of humanity have societies come to the needs of others as we do now.  Also, in terms of Western civilization, no other institution horded more wealth then did the Vatican--and much of that wealth is still there.  Will the Pope now disperse that wealth to the needy?  I say rule by example.
I don't see any harm in wanting to bring ethics back into economics if we're going to have free enterprise. Because in some ways I agree with the idea of those who posses vast economic power have slowly drawn much of society into somewhat of a tyrannical situation to where the playing field is no where near level. Sure we do a lot for those in need possibly more than ever and I have absolutely no problem with wanting to help those who are down or been through a disaster or are just unable to help themselves. Surely the U.S. and the church agree on this. But in our country we've entitled generations of people to expect it to the point where they don't really even want to help themselves even if they can let alone go out of their way to square up with society when or if they do become able. We've become a nation that glorifies all of those things that we know in our hearts to be wrong and spread those ideas around the world for he less fortunate to see and envy.
Jesus knew there would always be poor, hungry and sick people. And my understanding is that he too taught that those who are able should help support them. In fact it almost seems imperative lest society falls into a situation where oppression, violence and inequality flourishes under tyrrany.
My problem isn't with free market ideas so much as the corruption that seems to have infultrated our institutions which are there to protect us which I'm sure the church has seen it's fair share of as well. We need good Popes like we need good leaders in government which we 're clearly lacking right now. I don't think the Pope is wanting to Lord his economic ideas on the world, more like he's calling for good guy's to stand up IMO.
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot#post_3534982
Pretty much slams free enterprise and calls upon governments to tow the line on what he considers the unethical and ungodly enslavement of the many have-nots by the few of those who have in societies. The terminology he used disparagingly is certainly a slam on conservative economic ideals in this country and when he calls on government to change all that its a strong indicator to me of a socialist mindset.

I think Rush was right on the money equating the Pope's statements to Marxist ideals. Now, saying that, religion itself is always going to promote that all people are treated equitably and that no one suffer, go hungry, etc., for lack of money, especially where others seem to lack for nothing. However, even Jesus recognized that there will always be poor in the world. The Pope is not a good student of history if he thinks he is living in the worst of times in terms of modern societies not being generous to those in need. No other time in the history of humanity have societies come to the needs of others as we do now. Also, in terms of Western civilization, no other institution horded more wealth then did the Vatican--and much of that wealth is still there. Will the Pope now disperse that wealth to the needy? I say rule by example.

So we are to assume "Conservative economic ideals" are a good thing? I think our economic status from the years 2001 - 2007 may refute those ideologies. "Trickle-down economics" and the Keynesian economic theory doesn't work in today's society. The US has become a nation of disparity, and the socioeconomic status between the lower and upper classes is broader than its been in decades. We're moving away from Capitalistic ideologies to more of an oligarchy. It's become a "Survival Of The Fittest" way of life. The new Tea Party motto is, "I have mine. Keep your stinking hands off of it. Sucks to be you."
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot#post_3534983
If you define pure capitalism as what Adam Smith described when he first proposed such a thing, then the Pope wasn't far off. Smith called for those who benefitted most from capitalism to undertake exceptional responsibility for those who have not been so fortunate.
The difference being that Adam Smith was not admonishing a society about how corrupt it is and negligent of fulfilling that responsibility--the Pope is.

AggieAlum, disparity did not begin in 2001 and it sure didn't end when non-conservatives took the reins in Washington. I can assure you it is not a condition brought on exclusively by conservative nor liberal leanings. All I can say is, study history. You will find that people have more freedoms and opportunities now then they ever have in all of history. And its not because Marxism is triumphant.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

So we are to assume "Conservative economic ideals" are a good thing?  I think our economic status from the years 2001 - 2007 may refute those ideologies.  "Trickle-down economics" and the Keynesian economic theory doesn't work in today's society.  The US has become a nation of disparity, and the socioeconomic status between the lower and upper classes is broader than its been in decades.  We're moving away from Capitalistic ideologies to more of an oligarchy.  It's become a "Survival Of The Fittest" way of life.  The new Tea Party motto is, "I have mine. Keep your stinking hands off of it.  Sucks to be you."
Explain to me why the gap between The top 10% and the rest of the country has widened at a quicker rate than ever before under Liberal leadership of the last 5 years?
 
aggiealum

aggiealum

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot#post_3535003
Explain to me why the gap between The top 10% and the rest of the country has widened at a quicker rate than ever before under Liberal leadership of the last 5 years?
For one thing, we never got rid of the Bush Tax Cuts. The Top 10% have benefitted tremendously because of them. With the explosion of new technologies, specifically Internet advances like "working in The Cloud", they have a myriad of options to invest their money with fewer risks and larger returns. The lower and middle class are living paycheck-to-paycheck simply because of inflation of goods during a 6-year Recession. Then you have the opportunistic idiots that have become instant millionaires simply because they do something stupid on a TV reality show, or their claim to fame is nothing more than name recognition (their Daddy was a lawyer for The Trial Of The Century). What's sad is the American public allowed them to get there in the first place.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot#post_3535013
For one thing, we never got rid of the Bush Tax Cuts. The Top 10% have benefitted tremendously because of them. With the explosion of new technologies, specifically Internet advances like "working in The Cloud", they have a myriad of options to invest their money with fewer risks and larger returns. The lower and middle class are living paycheck-to-paycheck simply because of inflation of goods during a 6-year Recession. Then you have the opportunistic idiots that have become instant millionaires simply because they do something stupid on a TV reality show, or their claim to fame is nothing more than name recognition (their Daddy was a lawyer for The Trial Of The Century). What's sad is the American public allowed them to get there in the first place.
Why does the extension of the Bush tax cuts that benefited everyone, including the top 10%, and others becoming reality TV millionaires have to do with widening caps? If a millionaire makes more money, that doesn't mean that extra money is coming from my bank acct. It does mean, however, that less money is being handed over to a government that is prone to squander it away. Also, presumably a millionaire making a lot of money will be investing it in business some way---meaning more jobs perhaps? What benefit is there exactly in increasing income for the government? Government certainly doesn't pay off its colossal debt with the extra cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top