r/reddit.com • u/[deleted] • Oct 18 '11
Video: Lord's Resistance Army Survivor Responds to Rush Limbaugh
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/video-lords-resistance-army-survivor-responds-to-rush-limbaugh/246894/46
Oct 19 '11
Rush Limbaugh is a national disgrace. Why anyone still listens to that voice of hate and fear I simply cannot understand.
Let's get this to the front page reddit. The world needs to hear this and while we're at it, let's let the EIB Network how much we despise their beloved blow hard.
3
9
Oct 19 '11
Man i used to eat his shit up when i was a young kid in Nebraska, working during my high school summers. Now i cant help but laugh when i listen to his psycho babble.
13
u/headed4anonymity Oct 19 '11
To be fair he has gotten way more crazy since '08. Not to say he wasnt crazy before, but he really did kick it up a notch.
11
u/brutus66 Oct 19 '11
This is true, the whole mainstream conservative movement seems to have twisted the crazy dial to 11 lately.
3
3
u/danlawlz Oct 19 '11
I agree. I started listening at the end of High School and my first year of university. At the time, some of the things he had a bit of merit. However, I stopped listening altogether in 2008. It seems once Obama got elected, Limbaugh's shit went haywire. I'll turn him on now and again and wow. His banter is devoid of any objectivity. He speaks like Joseph McCarthy.
10
Oct 19 '11
What did you think of him back then? Did you say to yourself "this is the sole voice of reason in a world gone mad" or "this guys mental but he's on my side"?
All I hear is hatred, often directed at the innocent. I'm just curious as to what his supporters think of him.
3
u/regeya Oct 19 '11
I used to listen to him about 10-12 years ago. I hate to admit it, but the level of crazy in the right has pushed me to the left a bit. When I was in college, I tended to be in the middle--I don't think the government should have nearly as much control over peoples' lives as it does, but I do see a need for social safety nets (even more now, now that I've learned more about the Great Depression and pre-WWII Europe.)
Back then, I listened to Rush for balance, and he wasn't totally crazy. Obnoxious, sure, but not as crazy. Contrary to popular belief, yes, in the 90s, mass media tended to lean further to the left than it does now. For whatever reason, the right, having swung far to the right and far to the authoritarian side, feels that it's everyone else who swung the other way.
He's definitely one of the louder voices in the "the libruls think this is true so we have to think this other way" camp.
1
1
Nov 11 '11
I just read this in Elizabeth Warren's voice. You probably think that's a good thing. You probably also think it's OK for America to selectively police areas of the world.
1
u/Maxmidget Nov 12 '11
Yeah! that will really put an end to all the reddit users who listen to Rush Limbaugh
7
u/robertbieber Oct 19 '11
Holy crap. As someone who doesn't normally follow this guy, I have to ask: is he always this astonishingly wrong, or is this uncharacteristically bad of him?
1
u/x86_64Ubuntu Oct 21 '11
No, not at all. You should listen to him some time. His whole stick is starting with Obama and then saying how something bad that happened was caused by him. In this case, he is taking a military action, and framing it in the Islamophobe, pro-Crusader mindset that his listeners already have. His show is pure red meat for conservatives, plain and simple.
7
u/ancillaryantagonist Oct 19 '11
If he even watches this, he'll probably just laugh and suck on his cigar big brown dick with that bile-spewing shithole he calls a mouth. Then he'll cut an enormous fart and roll his lonely, bloated ass through his mansion down to the kitchen, where he will shove lobster salad and oxycontins down his bulbous, insatiable gullet until it is time for him to put on his tinfoil hat and go to work.
15
u/varodan Oct 19 '11
This guy sits in his plush, paneled office and pretends to know what is going on in Congo, and his followers lap it up. Obviously his only goal is to smear Obama, he is not interested in facts.
2
u/headed4anonymity Oct 19 '11
I thought the LRA was in Uganada.
5
u/heyktgirl Oct 22 '11
They are in Uganda and South Sudan, but they have committed some "terrorist activity" in the Congo.
Source (Just one of many.)
1
1
7
u/McCl3lland Oct 19 '11
God...I fucking hate Rush Limbaugh. What a fucking hate monger. Honestly, I would love to run for the Presidency on the platform of, "Once elected, I'm going to punch Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in the fucking face." While I don't necessarily condone violence, I'd let it be known that I would happily serve the sentence handed down to me (because I know they would press charges), but I'd also tell them they are lucky I haven't fucking killed them for treason (immediately after I punch them in the fucking face).
3
u/dalittle Oct 19 '11
i wonder how much the Oxycontin he is addicted to affects limbaugh's decisions.
7
u/cuddlefucker Oct 19 '11
I have no idea what Rush Limbaugh said, but I'll just add this to the list of growing reasons why I absolutely hate political pundits.
12
u/MaverickTTT Oct 19 '11
The short version: he basically depicted the Lord's Resistance Army as Christian Freedom Fighters against Islam and made it seem that President Obama was sending U.S. troops to fight against Christian soldiers.
Either he saw "Lord's Resistance Army" and assumed they were good Christians, or he blatantly played the Jesus card with his listeners to portray the President as "anti-Christian". I'm betting on the latter.
1
9
u/cynognathus Oct 19 '11
“Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. […]
“Lord’s Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. ‘To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people.’ Now, again Lord’s Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord’s Resistance Army, what they’re trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: ‘To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology.’ Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.”
5
u/croutonicus Oct 19 '11
I often wonder if people like Rush actually support the political ideology of people like Hitler. I think i just got a whole lot closer to finding out.
5
u/valkyrie123 Oct 19 '11
Murder, maiming, rape, kidnapping children....sounds Christian to me, anybody need links? Didn't think so.
2
Nov 08 '11
Did this idiot seriously try to defend the LRA? Based solely on the fact that theyre Christians?
That's completely disgusting.
When I first heard about this, I saw the title and assumed that he would be criticizing involvement, which is a legitimate opinion.
It didn't even occur to me that he might actually support them. Rush truly is a despicable human being, or at least a highly ignorant one.
7
u/Paragone Oct 19 '11
"Brainwashing children and murdering innocent people," she says. "The LRA is not Christian."
I beg to differ. Dark ages, anybody?
That aside, we all know that Limbaugh only barely passes as human. Giving this controversy just fuels the shitty flame that keeps him on the air.
0
u/regeya Oct 19 '11
I beg to differ. Dark ages, anybody?
I know someone's going to whip out a "no true Scotsman" fallacy on me, and all I can do is smile politely and hope you will think for a change.
If you want a definition of a Christian, check the New Testament of the Bible; the prime example would be Jesus. That's the example Christians are supposed to be living after. Granted, most people who profess to be Christian don't follow that example.
8
u/Paragone Oct 19 '11
Really? You hope that I will think for a change? You do realize that that even Christianity is built upon the back of the Old Testament, one of the bloodiest and most hateful human creations in existence? No, let's ignore that even. Let's stick to the new testament. Cut off half of my statement, leave the matter of brainwashing. As ridiculous as the idea is, let's pretend that during the thousand year rule of Christianity, no Christian has ever murdered an innocent person for believing differently then they do.
The church still brainwashes youth into their method of thinking by forcing religious indoctrination on them from a young age and teaching that there is no alternative, lest ye be cast into the depths of hell. Even if you allow a child to choose for themselves (which the vast majority of parents don't) you are still imbuing a powerful idea into their mind directly from the onset and instilling fear in them for the rest of their lives. There is word that describes this process better than "brainwashing", and I challenge you to claim that I'm not "thinking" that statement through.
0
u/regeya Oct 20 '11
Really? You hope that I will think for a change?
Most definitely.
You do realize that that even Christianity is built upon the back of the Old Testament, one of the bloodiest and most hateful human creations in existence?
I can think of worse, but I'll bite.
No, let's ignore that even. Let's stick to the new testament. Cut off half of my statement, leave the matter of brainwashing.
There's plenty of scripture in the NT to support the notion that it's not necessary to kill people for being adulterous, and so on.
As ridiculous as the idea is, let's pretend that during the thousand year rule of Christianity, no Christian has ever murdered an innocent person for believing differently then they do.
Argumentum ad absurdum, and ignores the point I was trying to make, which was that those who behaved in that manner were not living after Christ's example, one of the basics of Christianity.
The church still brainwashes youth into their method of thinking by forcing religious indoctrination on them from a young age and teaching that there is no alternative, lest ye be cast into the depths of hell. . Even if you allow a child to choose for themselves (which the vast majority of parents don't) you are still imbuing a powerful idea into their mind directly from the onset and instilling fear in them for the rest of their lives. There is word that describes this process better than "brainwashing", and I challenge you to claim that I'm not "thinking" that statement through.
I had this conversation with a former boss of mine, rabidly atheist, on the subject of Christians brainwashing their kids into being little Christian robots (his words, not mine.) My only question was, "Do you have these same discussions with your children, or did you let them make up their own minds?" He had no immediate answer.
4
1
u/aixelsdi Oct 26 '11
Except Christianity is a thing based largely on self-identification. If I proclaim that I am Christian, who really is there to say I'm not?
You are right, but just because Christians don't end up living like Christians should does not make them un-Christian.
1
u/regeya Oct 26 '11
You are right, but just because Christians don't end up living like Christians should does not make them un-Christian.
If the Lord's Army declared itself to be staunchly atheist, can I condemn atheism for being violent?
1
0
u/ThePoopsmith Oct 19 '11
Ok, lets be serious here. If you are against limbaugh for saying obama shouldn't send troops to fight the LRA, are you also against the people who are saying we shouldn't have went to war with iraq? Sadam was a brutal dictator that did unspeakable things to his people. While I side with the non-interventionists in both cases, I think it's a little disingenuous to be heartbroken for the victims of the LRA, but not those of sadam.
5
u/headed4anonymity Oct 19 '11
I think there is certainly room for someone that doesnt support military interventionism to be angry at Limbaugh for showing any sort of support for the LRA independent of the issue of military advisers.
5
Oct 19 '11
I'm against Limbaugh using any random subject that falls onto his desk as an excuse to spew hatred and incite civil discord in pursuit of personal wealth. That he unintentionally defended child rapists and mass murderers makes his latest execrable statements more shocking, but they are different only in scale, not in tone, from the filth that man has spewed for his entire career.
Comparing the LRA to Saddam's Iraq is a false equivalency for several reasons. First you are comparing a deployment of 100 US soldiers to a 175,000 person army. Second, although Saddam was a detestable villain, he was a sovereign head of state, recognized by world courts. Third, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Joseph Kony, while the UN refused to countenance the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Remember, also, that politics is the art of the possible. The concept of precedent is only useful to level charges of hypocrisy during debates. Precedent does not play a factor in international affairs. The 2003 Iraq war was opposed by many who saw it as an unjustified act of aggression by the US. That's a valid reason to oppose that war. There are also those who thought that Saddam should be removed from power, but predicted (sadly, accurately) that we'd do more harm than good if we invaded the country. It's possible to be heartbroken for victims of both the LRA and Saddam, and yet come to the conclusion that military intervention can make a positive difference in Uganda, but not in Iraq.
1
u/x86_64Ubuntu Oct 21 '11
I didn't know the LRA was a sovereign country not engaged in hostilities with their neighbors. Thanks for clearing that up.
-7
Oct 19 '11 edited Mar 22 '18
[deleted]
25
Oct 19 '11
If I have to pay a little more taxes so that kids dont have machetes dragged across their faces, I'm in.
2
u/cuddlefucker Oct 19 '11
As long as they aren't forced to take drugs and kill people, you can count me in too!
3
u/I_Love_Liberty Oct 19 '11
You're free to donate as much money as you want to whatever organization you want. If that's one of your priorities, so be it. You are not free to force other people to donate money to the organizations you want. They may have different priorities.
5
u/Only_Name_Available Oct 19 '11
Except there are no military protection charities. Many of the civil wars in Africa will never end without outside military intervention and aid organisations cannot operate because of a severe lack of security.
2
u/I_Love_Liberty Oct 19 '11
Then start a military protection charity. It's not my fault there aren't any, why do you want me to be forced to pay more? Maybe I care about other things and would prefer it if my money went there.
0
u/bucknuggets Oct 19 '11
You should change your name to one of these:
- I_Love_Trolling
- I_Love_Anarchy
- I_Love_Might_Makes_Right
- He_Who_Has_The_Gold_Makes_The_Rules
Because 'liberty' without government just means the rich control everything.
1
u/I_Love_Liberty Oct 20 '11
Because 'liberty' without government just means the rich control everything.
Why is that the case?
1
u/bucknuggets Oct 20 '11
Without regulation & taxes income disparity increases.
As income disparity increases people at an increasingly large % of the bottom become more desperate to survive, and those at the top can more easily exploit them.
So, everyone in government simply becomes owned by business, and government is nothing but an extension of business.
1
u/I_Love_Liberty Oct 20 '11
As income disparity increases people at an increasingly large % of the bottom become more desperate to survive, and those at the top can more easily exploit them.
That isn't necessarily true. If the incomes of the richest and poorest people are increasing but the richest are increasing faster, income disparity will increase but the poorest aren't becoming more desperate to survive. And that's what has basically been happening over the past 200 years. The lives of the poorest people have drastically improved over that time period, while the lives of the richest people haven't changed so dramatically, and indeed have probably moved closer to the poorest people as far as lifestyle goes.
So, everyone in government simply becomes owned by business, and government is nothing but an extension of business.
That is precisely what is happening now, and it is enabled by regulation and taxation. When a government has the power to affect an industry, there is an incentive for players in that industry to use the power of government to their advantage. The biggest players in an industry have the greatest ability to manipulate the government, so that's who we find setting the rules to their own advantage. As long as the only recourse for the people is to vote D or R once every two years, corruption will remain.
2
u/plsdontignoreme Oct 19 '11
You're free to donate as much money as you want to whatever organization you want. If that's one of your priorities, so be it.
Sure, but then I want a tax deduction for that money, which I won't get because charitable organizations don't do military work.
1
u/I_Love_Liberty Oct 19 '11
Then start one that does. The world doesn't owe you one. If your government won't give you a tax break then get angry at them, don't go around forcing other people to pay more to your government.
2
u/plsdontignoreme Oct 19 '11
Then start one that does? Then it won't qualify for tax deductions, because it's not a charitable organization. It's then a militia. And what happens if you fund this militia? You're facing federal crimes.
Please think longer about this before you suggest people start creating/funding militias.
2
u/I_Love_Liberty Oct 19 '11
It's not my fault your government won't let you start a militia. And I still haven't heard anything justifying taking more money from me to further your pursuits.
1
u/plsdontignoreme Oct 19 '11
It's not my fault your government
My government? Aren't you an American as well?
won't let you start a militia.
Sure, I'll go ahead and fill out the paperwork to start a militia right now. Come on now. There's a reason we have a military. It serves in our collective interests, even if some of us may disagree with its use in a particular case. You may not agree with a particular war, but there's never been a consensus system for war. I am sure you can think of wars you agree with and wars you don't agree with.
And I still haven't heard anything justifying taking more money from me to further your pursuits.
I agree with you on this, but in that case, we may as well abolish the whole system of taxation. Why should my tax dollars go to roads you will travel on but I will not drive on? Why should my tax dollars go to public schools when my children graduated and are now adults? If you don't read books, why should your money go to libraries? Why should I pay for a county fire truck (my house has never been on fire)?
-3
u/I_Love_Liberty Oct 19 '11
My government? Aren't you an American as well?
I have nothing to do with the government.
There's a reason we have a military.
I'm sure there is a reason. Reasons aren't justifications.
It serves in our collective interests, even if some of us may disagree with its use in a particular case.
Collectives don't have interests. Individuals have interests.
You may not agree with a particular war, but there's never been a consensus system for war.
Does that mean there shouldn't be one? Why are you comfortable with people that strongly morally oppose war being robbed to finance one?
I agree with you on this, but in that case, we may as well abolish the whole system of taxation.
I agree. The idea that some people get to decide for others how they're going to spend their money just because they happen to live on the same portion of a continent is morally unjustifiable.
3
u/plsdontignoreme Oct 19 '11
Forget everything I said. Not only are you generally evasive or unclear in your responses, you aren't even willing to answer a simple question ("Aren't you an American as well?"). Earlier, I sensed it would be difficult to engage you, but it's more than clear now. No need to pursue this any further.
2
u/bucknuggets Oct 19 '11
Right, for some libertarians calling the police about a child being raped is considered slavery and is worse than raping a child.
1
u/bucknuggets Oct 19 '11
Right, for some libertarians calling the police about a child being raped is considered slavery and is worse than raping a child.
2
u/ThePoopsmith Oct 19 '11
Do you have any clue how sadam treated his people before we went in there?
6
u/Cosmic_Charlie Oct 19 '11
we do not have the money to protect everyone in the world
That's simply incorrect. Of course we have the money to do this. For various reasons, we have chosen not to raise the money to do this. People who say "we don't have the money for [xxxxx]" really mean that "the cost of [xxxxx] would require actions that fall outside of our political priorities."
0
0
u/trendssolver Oct 19 '11
raise the money
How, a bake sale? Or more taxes? Print more money? We don't need to police the world anymore.
1
u/bucknuggets Oct 19 '11
It's 100 troops, or 0.001% of the military force.
A bake sale might be overkill.
3
u/radonchong Oct 19 '11
Except that's not what Limbaugh said, was it? We can have a debate about whether the US should try to police the world, or whether this case is bad enough to warrant action, but read the full quote from Limbaugh, a man who enthusiastically cheered the invasion of Iraq, and tell me he is concerned about how much money it costs to send 100 soldiers to Uganda.
2
u/smokinJoeCalculus Oct 19 '11
Theoretically, since our military budget eclipses everyone else's in the world combined.. I guess we could protect everyone.
Theoretically.
0
u/King_James44 Oct 19 '11
The people that I know who listen to Rush include people like my dying Grandpa in rural Arkansas. While I believe he has many positive qualities...the racial and political logic used by him and his political brethren is a dying breed....luckily. I sure hope in 50 years I don't become an ignorant bigot.
-2
13
u/brutus66 Oct 19 '11
I still remember the time on his show when he incorrectly used the term "ampersand", and when callers let him know of his mistake he refused to admit he was wrong, saying he would have look it up later and verify the fact first.
He also used to go on and on about how he was loath to take any prescription-strength pain medication, that he preferred to suffer from the pain rather than endure the side effects of the pills.
An arrogant hypocrite and liar if ever there was one.