Robert Egger, the Founder and President of nonprofit DC Central Kitchen, which produces 4,500 meals per day for people who would otherwise go hungry and also provides job training with an almost 100% job placement for 400 unemployed people per year, answers the Hindenberg of Gasbags' stupidity and willingness to incite hatred againsts fellow Americans.
Mr. Egger does a smashing job of showing what a divisive, hateful, nincompoop Limbaugh truly is. I guess Limbaugh is popular because there will always be people in this country who need to hate and to blame others for their own inadequacies. Limbaugh is their guy when it comes to spreading lies about and distrust of their fellow citizens.
Thank you, Robert Egger, for countering Limbaugh's toxic sewerage:
h/t Democratic Underground
40 comments:
Malcontents...
Middle aged white guys who are disgusted with their own lives and are too lazy to do anything about it so they ridicule and badmouth everyone else...
If you cannot improve yourself then bad mouth everyone else down to your own level.
Great message! They speak for millions!
Do people still listen to that braying jackass?
As a founder of a non profit trying to make a difference on an annual budget of under 100K [this includes salary, overhead, and our work throughout Mexico] I guess it is time to rethink my ministry now that I have been labeled a lazy idiot and a rapist...
Finally!! Someone with the courage to put that big fat F**k in his place! I love it!
Dave,
We honor the work you do. I don't know what's wrong with Limbaugh. The only explanation for his scandalous remarks about nonprofits is that he deliberately stokes the fires of controversy to get people to listen to him.
I can't believe any sane person believes or endorses what he said.
You're absolujtely right. Limbaugh is an utter moron. The differences between the two are minimal and have NOTHING to do with work ethics (something Limbaugh himself knows very little about).
Those differences are strictly financial in manner:
Capital
For profit - capital is financed through investment
Non-profit - capital is financed through debt
Enrichment
For profit - the business is for the sole purpose of enrichng the proprietor or investors
Non-profit - the business is established to enrich the community in which it is established.
Taxes
For profit is liable for taxes
Non-profit does not pay taxes BUT any profits made by that non-profit organization must be used for the mission for which it was established.
Profits
For profits can make financial gains and distribute those gains to share holders, partners or other interests
Non-profits must use those gains in line with their mission, increasing the services of the non-profit or donated to other non-profit interests.
Close of business
If a for profit business goes out of business, they can liquidate their assets and distribute the income to shareholders, proprioters or in any other fashion the desire
If a non-profit business closes, liquidated assets must be given to another non-profit company.
As always, Limbaugh speaks out his ass while farting, so it's hard to determine if he stinks or his words do. Either way, he STINKS.
I have dialoged with you long enough to know that you are at least moderately intelligent.
I find it difficult to understand why a person with more reasoning power than at fifth grader would think Limbaugh's comments were directed at the many non-profits who do great things, many of whom he personally supports with his own (non-corporate) money.
You are doing exactly the same thing Breitbart was accused of doing.
Why is that bad for Breitbart to do but OK for you to do?
You either did not understand his point or you dileberately mis-construed it to enable yourself to look better.
Can't have it both ways.
Sorry to be back so soon.
Let me clarify.
The key to intellectually understanding Rush Limbaugh’s comments lies in the phrase: “To support them…”
What is the antecedent of “them?”
It is the government that believes the public sector is there to support them.
The “non-profit” to which Rush referred were FGCs, and would include: the Smithsonian, the U.S. Institute for Peace, the Public Broadcasting System, the National Park Foundation and many, many quasi-government businesses such as Amtrack, the Post Office, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack.
The context of Limbaugh’s statement demanded reference to these entities, not to those nonprofits legitimately engaged in helping humanity.
So, if you run a soup kitchen, relax. He wasn't making any kind of reference to you.
You just so wanted him to that you imposed your desired interpretation on his comments.
Naughty, naughty.
Joe,
This "moderately intelligent" blogger asks you to use your moderate powers of reasoning to listen to Limbaugh and tell me how his words were taken out of context.
If his words were taken out of context, you need to post the full text of what he said. In the video I link to, he doesn't qualify his criticism against nonprofits.
Another example of misinformation and lies coming out of Limbaugh's nasty maw:
RUSH: Well, I'm happy to be noted, and I'm happy they've heard about this. It's obviously irritating them, this Imam Obama business, but I've only been saying that since last week, and his numbers have been plunging for much longer than that. People have long doubted Obama when he says he's a Christian, long before we got in the game here with the media tweak of Imam Obama. Barack Obama was baptized Christian by a man who Calypso Louie gave a lifetime achievement award. That would be the Reverend Wright. He was baptized Christian by a man who gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award named after him, the Jeremiah Wright Award.
So the Limbaugh defines President Obama as an "imam," then feeds into the stupidity of his listeners who question Mr. Obama's Christianity because he attended Rev. Wright's church.
By his stupid logic, every Catholic should be suspect for remaining in a church that covered up crimes against children. What Rev. Wright did--speaking his opinions--was not a crime. What certain priests in the RCC did is.
If Rush believes in guilt by someones' association in a religious organization, then he must believe that Catholics are complicit in the molestation and rape of innocent children so long as they remain in any Catholic Church, because the organizations that controlled the RCC in Rome and in various parishes throught the world covered those crimes up.
IOW, Rush is a big fat idiot.
You and Limbaugh fail to understand, Joe, that in America "we the people" are the government. The government is elected by the people.
Rush talks about "the government" as though it were some alien entity--alien, of course, only when the Democrats are in charge. LOL!
The government IS the American people. American voters put them in charge, so Rush's hatred of the government is essentially hatred of the American people.
I would also remind Limbaugh that the American people knew all about Rev. Wright by the time Mr. Obama was elected, thanks to the interminable tapes being played by the MSM.
And the American people voted to have Mr. Obama represent them as their president.
I would tell Limbaugh to his nasty face that the American people have spoken.
They didn't care a flying fig about the issue.
But apparently Limbaugh is so obsessed with it that he can't let it go.
Poor, dumb, idiotic fool.
Also, Limbaugh needs to remember a minority of Americans listen to his drivel.
America isn't that much into him.
America is into Limbaugh to the tune of more listeners than any other syndicated talk show, liberal or conservative. Some 20,000,000 listeners.
"We the people" should be the government. To me that means that the government should listen and respond after being elected. They should do what the people want them to do, so long as it is Constitutional.
This government listens to the people and does what it wants to anyway.
There was no clamor for government health care from the majority of the public, only from politicians, the media,the lazy and those of the extreme left.
But we got it anyway.
The majority still don't favor it, but alas it is too late.
That's because we are evolving a people of the government, by the government and for the government.
"America is into Limbaugh to the tune of more listeners than any other syndicated talk show, liberal or conservative. Some 20,000,000 listeners."
We are a nation of 300+ million people. Even if his audience were 20 million [and there is no evidence that it is, BTW], that number would still be a distinct minority of Americans who listen to his rancid demagoguery.
He has done nothing for this country but turn Americans against each other strictly for his own enrichment because he truly believes that in America, there is a sucker born every minute--his audience attests to PT Barnum's observation.
JOE: "There was no clamor for government health care from the majority of the public, only from politicians, the media,the lazy and those of the extreme left."
Perhaps that is because the average American had no idea how much medical costs were impacting the budget. Also, you do remember that there was no clamor for the government to desegregate the schools in America either, or to give African-Americans back the right to vote or sit in the front of the bus.
We do not govern by mob rule. Our Founding Fathers knew enough about human nature to understand that "the people" don't always use their heads in political issues.
JOE: "That's because we are evolving a people of the government, by the government and for the government."
IOW, by the people, because we elect the government we get.
The Right has found its patriotic voice only now that a Democratic president with an unusual name is in the WH.
I've been monitoring Limbaugh long enough to know that when he begins blasting away, he doesn't care what he hits.
As for health care, the system was on the verge of collapse.. That was true whether or not a majority of the country was informed enough to think so. For once, elected representatives moved to fix a problem before it became a disaster. Whether it will work or merely buys time remains to be seen.
Along those lines, Republicans have been clamoring for years to privatize Social Security even though few people want this.The (false) argument is...that it is on the verge of collapse unless we privatize.
Joe, do you really believe the role of government is to do what the people want as long as it is constitutional?
If that is true, and you stated as much, was President bush wrong for not getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan once support evaporated?
Is President Obama wrong for continuing the war in Afghanistan now even though a clear majority of people in the US do not support it?
Why was it leadership when President Bush, and Congress acted against the wishes of the American people, but when Democrats do the same, it is wrong?
Isn't it possible that both parties may be showing leadership, but that the partisans on both sides of the aisle are unable to accept such a grown up interpretation?
As for Obama's Christianity, I hope you are not taking Limbaugh's spin on this. While he is a successful radio host and entertainer, I for one cannot see how he has a platform to judge others based on how he exhibits love for his enemies [specifically Obama] or fellow man, especially those of differing opinions.
The reason the Founding Fathers devised a representative form of government is because they believed that public opinion was overly influenced by the emotions of the moment and that it could be tempered by a body of representative elites. That's as fundamental to our system as the 1st Amendment.
That being said, I do not believe that a war can or should be conducted without public support. Bush/Cheney displayed contempt for public opinion in this regard. While the animus against the Afghanistan war has not reached the level as it did again Iraq, it could if Obama does not stick to his guns and begin pulling out next year.
This is my view regardless of who is president or what party is in power. War is never a good idea; war without public backing is a worse idea.
I wonder if Limbaugh realizes that the Tobacco Institute and the Heritage Foundation are non-profits.
I don't get bent out of shape over non-profits. But I do dislike the class of non-profits that bill themselves as charities while they shovel money into the bankvaults of millionaires. United Way is one of those. And then there's Wyclef Jean enhancing his personal bottom line with his efforts to help Haiti.
Joe dialogued:
'I have dialoged with you long enough to know that you are at least moderately intelligent.'
Sheesh. Leave town for a couple of days and look what happens. Is Joe The Gripers nephew or something?
How can a person write such drivel? Condescending doesn't begin to describe such a statement.
On the other hand having dialogued with Joe myself I'm not sure I can return the compliment.
Also I can see we're going to need a list of the millionaires the United Way has created and/or enriched.
Joe,
You still haven't given us a transcript or a link to where Limbaugh qualifies his criticism of nonprofits.
You claim I took him out of context, but didn't show me how I did so.
If you don't come back and provide me evidence, I have to assume I was correct.
Don't hold your breath Shaw, they always run away like mice when they get called out.
SK: The very video to which you referred us! Didn't you watch the whole thing? Or did you just watch the "non-profit" phrase?
BTW: Which of us brought up President BO's "unusual name?"
Hint: You...not me.
"What is the antecedent of “them?”
It is the government that believes the public sector is there to support them."
Straight out of the video YOU linked us to.
Dave Miller: "was President bush wrong for not getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan once support evaporated?"
Yep.
"Why was it leadership when President Bush, and Congress acted against the wishes of the American people, but when Democrats do the same, it is wrong?"
I never said it was.
Why is Bush still president, even though "we" voted for BO?
Who brought up President BO's "Christianity," you or me?
Hint: You.
Arthurstone: Typical of liberals, you think something is true because you say it...not because it is actual fact. You have never dialogued with me.
Are you saying that Shaw is NOT at least moderately intelligent?
"BTW: Which of us brought up President BO's "unusual name?"
Hint: You...not me."
Actually, it's the BFI who brings it up, currently on a daily basis.
""Why was it leadership when President Bush, and Congress acted against the wishes of the American people, but when Democrats do the same, it is wrong?"
I never said it was."
Yes, and I'm sure you trolled blogs to make this point and brought it up at every opportunity.
"SK: The very video to which you referred us! Didn't you watch the whole thing? Or did you just watch the "non-profit" phrase?"--JOE
SK: I watched the whole thing.
"BTW: Which of us brought up President BO's "unusual name?"
Hint: You...not me."--JOE
SK: Joe, no one accused you of bringing up Mr. Obama's unusual name. I was stating an opinion. You do this often on your own blog.
JOE: "What is the antecedent of “them?”
It is the government that believes the public sector is there to support them."
Straight out of the video YOU linked us to."
SK: And it is Limbaugh's and your opinion that the government "believes" this. Where is there evidence that "the government" actually states this as a matter of policy? See, you and a lot of other conservatives THINK or BELIEVE this, so you THINK and BELIEVE it is what the goverment says.
JOE: "Why is Bush still president, even though "we" voted for BO?"
SK: Oh he isn't. We're just pointing out the hypocrisy, which certain conservatives never seem to see. Thankfully for our country, Mr. Bush is no longer the president.
JOE: "Who brought up President BO's "Christianity," you or me?
Hint: You."
SK: No. Actually Limbaugh did. I used his rancid rant as an example of his lies, distortions, and devious misrepresentations. No one accused you of bringing it up.
JOE: "Are you saying that Shaw is NOT at least moderately intelligent?"
SK: Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. Arthurstone implies nothing of the sort. But you couldn't stop yourself from your favorite sport:
Being condescending to those who may actually be your superiors in logic.
Joe, on whether or not President Obama is a Christian, I was responding to a Limbaugh comment that Shaw posted.
To respond to your YEP, and I do not want to put words in your mouth, do you really believe the role of government is to do what the people want as long as it is constitutional?
That was my first question. Because that would really be saying something radical.
If this is a prevalent view, and I am not sure it is, then why was President Bush considered a great leader by GOP partisans when he went against the polls and some of the majority opinions of people here in the US?
What if the people want unjust laws?
If we are to be governed by majority rule, albeit within a Constitutional framework, are there any safeguards against a tyranny of the majority?
As for my usage of "President" when talking/writing about Mr. Bush, I use President when talking about former presidents, an accepted and time honored showing of respect.
Both Former President and President are accepted forms of titling for those that have served us in that capacity.
You're such a nice person Shaw.
And moderatelly intelligent to boot!
Shaw moderately thanks Arthurstone.
Moderately intelligent?Geez, talk about a back handed compliment. Is this guy and MCP or what?
tnlib,
JOE is a conservative who likes to belittle liberals. It's sport for him.
"Actually, it's the BFI who brings it up, currently on a daily basis."
Now Limbaugh is claiming that the President is Muslim many times per day. (through use of a particular title some Muslim clerics have)
SK: I said you were at least moderately intelligent. That means you may very well be: moderately intelligent; more than moderately intelligent; much more than moderately intelligent; very intelligent; extremely intelligent or absolute genius.
Contrary to what some people may think, I do not think there is any possibility that you are less than moderately intelligent.
"JOE is a conservative who likes to belittle liberals. It's sport for him."
No, no. I hate belittling liberals. It's just that I am constrained to do so by their collective backward thinking and erroneous logic.
I haven't engaged in sport since I gave up football and tennis due to a bad knee and old age.
K: How can you be so sure?
""Actually, it's the BFI who brings it up, currently on a daily basis."
Now Limbaugh is claiming that the President is Muslim many times per day. (through use of a particular title some Muslim clerics have)"
It's the cynicism that gets me. Limbaugh believes that Obama is a Muslim about as much as a Red Sox fan think George Steinbrenner should be canonized. The contempt he has for his audience must be prodigious.
How can I be so sure that Limbaugh brings up Obama's faith on a daily basis? Because I monitor the show.
The other is called "sarcasm."
" no. I hate belittling liberals. It's just that I am constrained to do so by their collective backward thinking and erroneous logic."
Talk about erroneous logic. This assumes that the entire course of western history -- which has moved in a liberalizing direction -- has been dominated by backward thinking and erroneous logic. For example, what was backward or erroneous about Abolitionism? Extending the right to vote to women? The Enlightenment?
Conservatives have made the debate personal by impugning the patriotism of millions of people simply because of their outlook.
K, conservatives like to ignore the great progress that liberals/progressives have helped this nation to achieve.
The end of child labor, women's suffrage, civil rights for minorities: African Americans, women, gays; equal pay for equal work, safety in the work force, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc., etc.
Those are just a few of the issues supported by progressives/liberals that were opposed by conservatives.
I'm guessing Joe calls that backward thinking and erronieous logic just to get a rise out of us.
I can't believe anyone with any compassion and understanding of justice for his fellow Americans would be against all the progress liberals have helped this country to achieve.
K, conservatives like to ignore the great progress that liberals/progressives have helped this nation to achieve.
The end of child labor, women's suffrage, civil rights for minorities: African Americans, women, gays; equal pay for equal work, safety in the work force, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc., etc.
Those are just a few of the issues supported by progressives/liberals that were opposed by conservatives.
I'm guessing Joe calls that backward thinking and erronieous logic just to get a rise out of us.
I can't believe anyone with any compassion and understanding of justice for his fellow Americans would be against all the progress liberals have helped this country to achieve.
August 27, 2010 8:14 AM
Blogger Arthurstone said...
"Joe" floundered:
"SK: I said you were at least moderately intelligent. That means you may very well be: moderately intelligent; more than moderately intelligent; much more than moderately intelligent; very intelligent; extremely intelligent or absolute genius.
Contrary to what some people may think, I do not think there is any possibility that you are less than moderately intelligent."
Let it go Joe. This isn't helping you.
And by the way we have 'dialogued' on these threads before. I'm hurt you don't remember.
But I'll get over it.
For what it's worth I hope you never stop:
"No, no. I hate belittling liberals. It's just that I am constrained to do so by their collective backward thinking and erroneous logic."
The only bone I have to pick with that is the obvious glee with which you 'belittle'.
The joy is how poorly you do it.
Arthurstone: Women's Sufferage. Women were allowed to vote in NJ until 1797 when John Condict, Democrat, ran for the senate, opposing the woman's vote. In 1807 New Jersey lawmakers quickly adopted new voting laws that took away the vote from the ladies. It would take over 100 years for them to get it back.
Jim Crow: Brought to fruition by Woodrow Wilson, Democrat-Progressive.
From the time FDR, Democrat-Progressive, took office in 1933, he absolutely refused to desegregate the government.
Democrats have worked to enslave African-Americans and to make them dependent on government hand-outs.
Even JF Kennedy, often erroneously touted as a Progressive, was stand-offish toward the Civil Rights movement.
Kennedy DID encourage congress to afford equal pay for women, but that was not considered a Progressive dogma at the time...it was considered pretty conservative.
American with Disability Act: George H. W. Bush...1990.
And I'm sure that Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover were noble tribunes of civil rights.
Wilson was a racist, but Jim Crow was the policy of individual southern states, not the federal government. The successful southern terrorism (perpetrated by self-identified conservatives) that defeated Reconstruction and subsequent Supreme Court decisions -- most notably Plessy v. Ferguson -- established Jim Crow.
I refer you to The Bloody Shirt: Terror After the CIvil War (Budiansky), Those Terrible Carpetbaggers: A Reinterpretation (Current), A People
s History of the Supreme Court (Irons), Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War (Lemann), and of course the three volumes of Taylor Branch's America in the King Years.
Post a Comment