Limbaugh wants Michelle Obama to ‘let it go’ already on slavery

Posted by | July 27, 2016 09:18 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Politics


We all know that right wing hate talker has a long, long history of spewing hateful racist bile on the air, which only increased when, heaven forbid, our first black president was elected, and threw out the racist dog whistles for blow horns long ago. So it should come as no surprise to no one that…

(more…)

By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

110 responses to Limbaugh wants Michelle Obama to ‘let it go’ already on slavery

  1. whatthe46 July 27th, 2016 at 09:49

    Deep down this pos is butt hurt as the day is long.

  2. William July 27th, 2016 at 10:05

    Hey conservatives!
    Remember.
    You built this

  3. Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 10:13

    Let’s not forget that people have the right to their own labor/service/care they choose to provide (to others).

    But having the state mandate these services as rights like ObamaCARE or Internet SERVICE, etc is what Alan Colmes supports. Care and services provided for by the labor of others as somehow a right!

    And he wants to call himself such a big opponent of slavery ? Make me laugh :)

    ALL involuntary servitude is a violation of our civil rights – even when done by the state, believe it or not – even if it is legalized !

    • arc99 July 27th, 2016 at 10:27

      I have to say that is one of the most irrational unhinged rants I have ever seen, bordering on nonsensical.

      When you and your loved ones take an airline flight, are you angry because the poor oppressed airline controllers are FORCED by the government to make sure your plane does not collide with another.

      And how about Limbaugh himself? What about the millions of people like me who detest everything about the man but yet we are FORCED to subsidize the free public airwaves he uses to earn millions of dollars.

      Honestly do you ever think about what you write. In any event, unless you can cite a violation of the United States Constitution to support your objections, keep in mind that it is that Constitution which governs us, not your opinions.

      • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 10:32

        So you support state-mandated labor in the form of rights to others ?

        You might try replying to the issues rather than insulting others.

        I take that as an idiot who can’t respond

        • arc99 July 27th, 2016 at 10:36

          I did reply to the issue. You did not state one single violation of the US Constitution. I could care less whether the way this country functions offends you personally.

          Point out the Constitutional violation or as far as I am concerned, your argument has zero merit.

          And if you are going to refer to me as an “idiot” who can’t respond, your own idiocy of failing to address my examples of the airline controller and physician, and Limbaugh are noted. Two can play this trash-talking game you know..

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 10:48

            Freedom of Association is an implied right to the 1st ammednment , the supreme court found.

            AND the ninth ammendmest says lack of mention a right does not imply that it doesn’t exist.

            If you don’t support freedom of association just have the B*LLS to say so.

        • Budda July 27th, 2016 at 13:15

          Define “state-mandated labor”.

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 14:24

            I think it essentially involuntary servitude – like the draft. This is where the state forces you into service/labor.

            It is part of the greater concept of what state-mandates are and in this case I an referring to state-mandated labor that would be required if people refuse to provide health care. Remember – the state has proclaimed this is or ought to be a RIGHT.

            Tell me what the state has to do in this situation to “protect” that “right” when others refuse to work ?

        • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 14:16

          Even YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

          If you use healhcare, roads, airplanes, drugs, food, fire departments, police departments, the court system, you are taking advantage of what those organizations are required to do. The internet was developed entirely on gubmint funds, which you think is absolutely terrible, but yet you make use of it to spread your excuse for “wisdom.” Apparently YOU support whatever the hell you said.
          Can you say “hypocrisy” or do you need someone to do it for you?
          .

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 14:40

            NO organization should be MANDATED to provide anything. Required under some contract of employment ? That is absolutely ok as one is free to quit the job to avoid that requirement.

            State-mandates offer no such solution.

            The draft was involuntary servitude (slavery) or state-mandated labor

            • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 15:00

              I work for the government. I can quit my job. The State mandates what my job is. Ergo, your premise is false.

              Libertarian – they live north of the Munchkins but underneath the WInkies…

              • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 15:11

                And if the requirement were that government employees provide that care or service then that would be fine.

                But when someone proclaims that people everywhere in the U.S. have a RIGHT to that labor (or care or service) of/from others, That is a claim that this is a right REGARDLESS of whether those people wish to provide it or not.

                Tell us how the state will provide for and support that right when those people providing the labor refuse !

                How else could it be a right ?

                • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 15:38

                  Who did this? Who is being forced to provide care or service to others? If they don’t want to provide the service, they can just quit the business. Ergo, they are NOT mandated to do it. And people HAVE quit their job, and the people still get to hang out when they want.

                  You are living in fantasy land where words have different meanings, where lying is SOP, and where the height of political philosophy is “You’re not the boss of me.”

                  Provide me with a fact, then I will believe at least ONE thing you’ve said. Provide me with a credible source listing “freedom of association” as the defining characteristic of fascism. Provide a source for the claim that you are forced to do something you can simply walk away from (you know, quit!)

                  All you provide is lies, dishonest and juvenile rhetorical masturbation, and a Tolkien-on-hallucinogens understanding of how the world actually works.

                  Even Libertarian Gary Johnson says that a significant part of the Libertarian party are just batshit insane.

    • mistlesuede July 27th, 2016 at 10:36

      You want Alan’s body don’t you?
      You are a little obsessed with him.

      • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 10:46

        Alan is a typical left-wing fascist claiming to be a liberal but in total support of state-mandated associations over our civil right to freedom of association. And that makes him a fascist.

        He is a hypocrite .

        ALL real liberals support the liberal concept of freedom of association.

        • mistlesuede July 27th, 2016 at 10:55

          Thanks for your concern trolling about “real liberals” as described by you. Unfortunately for you we are not homogenized into one form or idea.
          Your obsession over Alan is bordering on hysterics. Alan can speak well for himself, but since I’m here instead and have seen your constant sniping at him with this kind of ridiculousness, there is only one explanation that makes sense. You have a thing for him.

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 28th, 2016 at 13:57

            A liberal is someone who is willing to let his/her next-door neighbors to lead their own lives.

            A very crude/simple definition but one that exposes the idea of what is at the heart of liberalism

            The idea that you can be willing to allow your neighbors to lead their own lives but that someone must control/regulate/ and mandate their associations is ridiculous.

            • mistlesuede July 28th, 2016 at 14:42

              You again? Really?
              A liberal is a lot of things and is not able to be described in hyperbole which you seem to wallow in.
              To end this particular farcical intrusion into my inbox, “your neighbors are allowed to lead their own lives” up and until they infringe on mine.

        • Budda July 27th, 2016 at 13:13

          You sound like a Sovereign Citizen yaking on and on about being independent of everyone and everything. If so, please stop using the internet.

        • Hirightnow July 27th, 2016 at 13:47

          You do not know what fascism actually is, do you?

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 14:11

            I certainly do!

            Fascism: the authoritarian/political view in the concept of state-mandated associations to achieve political/social goals (left or right).

            This is opposed to the liberal concept of freedom of association where people/individuals and associations have control over whom and how and for what they associate for or don’t associate for.

            (within the boundaries of the concept of freedom, of course).

            • Hirightnow July 27th, 2016 at 15:40

              Not even close.

              • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 15:54

                If you simply accept definitions without any thought, then that may be the case.

                But authoritarians and fascists impose their authoritarian view BY state-mandated associations

                If you know of another possible way, tell us.

                Now if you have a concise short definition of fascism that is shorter than 3 lines, supply it.

                • Hirightnow July 27th, 2016 at 21:08

                  Give me a short <3 sentence explanation of neurosurgery. (It MUST include all of the nuances of that field).
                  I looked, but Schoolhouse Rock didn't have any songs about fascism, which I figured was about your speed
                  But here's one that just might be short enough for you, from one Lachlan Montague:

                  Fascism is extremely complex, before I try to simplify it, we need simply to acknowledge this.

                  Fascism
                  is a term which can be applied to a great many similar but different
                  political movements which emerged during the first half of the 20th
                  century, especially after the First World War, when they became at times
                  particularly successful.

                  Fascism’s popularity is based largely
                  on an emotional, and highly nationalist ideology, the central belief
                  being that one was superior based on where one had been born, or one’s
                  ethnic identity, over others. There is the good, us, we, those like us,
                  and the bad, the other, those not like us, our enemy. Scapegoating was
                  commonplace, most famously in Nazi Germany, where the “in” group, so
                  called Aryans, were considered the victims of the “other” the Jews.
                  This nationalism gave rise to much of the bigotry we today associate
                  with fascism.

                  Citizens of a fascist state were often convinced
                  that they were victims of some description. Germany again is the best
                  example, but Mosley considered the same weakening of British industry to
                  overseas competitors to be “taking our jobs,” and the New Guard were
                  worried about humiliation in the eyes of the British Empire for actions
                  outside of their control.

                  People often get Fascism and Nazism
                  confused. All Nazis were fascists, but not all fascists were Nazis.
                  National Socialism, the German form of fascism, for example, is
                  completely different to the Australian form of fascism, the New Guard,
                  which wasn’t even anti-Semitic, nor particularly racist by the general
                  standard of the era.

                  The emotion of fascism is of utmost
                  importance, as it reflected that ideas were not necessarily rational,
                  nor informed, but rather based on the decisions made by the “gut.” An
                  example of this could be the constant stream of disagreement that Oswald
                  Mosley managed with the rest of the British parliament at some point,
                  basically alone against many other bipartisan standpoints. This probably
                  cost his Union of Fascists political relevance, given negotiation is
                  central to parliamentary democracy. This position actually gives
                  fascism its name. A facses (unsure of spelling, sorry) is a collection
                  of sticks. Weak individually, but strong when combined. Fascism was
                  thought to be the people united under the one leader, moving in the same
                  direction, reaping the benefits of the strength of the combined parts.
                  The reality is completely different, but the emotional context differed
                  from reality.

                  Fascist movements in almost every instance had a
                  clear leader, and this individual held absolute authority. Mussolini,
                  for example took the title of Duce (meaning head) of Italy. If it was to
                  be war, the leader decided. Peace, the leader decided. In practice this
                  stood to fail if public opinion turned, but the idea was of absolute
                  authority equal to that of a pre-Renaissance despot. The leader would be
                  to unite all under the leader.

                  A fascist economy varied. It was
                  not controlled in the way a Marxist economy is, nor “free” like today’s
                  capitalist markets. Fascism has been described as a person having two
                  cows, the government confiscates them, and sells the people the milk
                  they produce. This is not the whole story. On paper, fascist governments
                  claimed to always be supporting the working classes. Of course they
                  were, this was where their soldiers would come from. Yet due to relying
                  on wealth to take power, often the upper echelons of leadership included
                  noted industrialists, who did extremely well out of various government
                  projects. BMW, Ig Farben, and Mercedes Benz did extremely well under
                  Hitler, particularly through the use of Jewish slaves early on. I would
                  describe a fascist economy as unregulated, but manipulated capitalism,
                  but the variance of individual fascist governments varies considerably.
                  Mosley, for example, was not dissimilar to Keynes in some of his ideas,
                  however much this probably annoyed Keynes.

                  Fascism in practice
                  is considerably flawed. The leader lives by the sword so to speak, only
                  able to be secure if the people support him (or her, but other than
                  arguably Eva Peron, I cannot think of female fascists with official
                  roles in government). All it would take for a fascist leader to be
                  overthrown would be thinga to not go well, which is likely given the
                  high level of control one person has, and definite ability they would
                  need to have for this to go well. For Mussolini, the war went poorly,
                  and he quickly was dismissed, arrested and imprisoned. The Germans
                  pulled him from his cell, but the Italian people caught up with him
                  later, and his death was humiliating to say the very least. For Hitler,
                  strong propaganda, coupled with a climate of fear maintained a cult of
                  personality that carried more water, but many will tell you that often
                  it was indifference in Germany that saw him get away with much. Mosley
                  never really had a downfall, but more faded out of relevance after the
                  so-called battle of Cable Street, where Jews, spcialists and factory
                  workers set aside other differences, and basically beat the crap out of
                  him and his followers. He would later be incarcerated during the war due
                  to his fascist tendencies.

                  In the period after the Second World
                  War, fascism survived in practice, but seldom if at all name. Francisco
                  Franco maintained his rule of Spain until his death in the late 1970’s.
                  The title of fascist was no longer accepted, but due tp his fervent
                  anti-communism, the Americans provided considerable financial support,
                  without which Spain would have really struggled to thrive. Peron took
                  much of what he learned from spending much of the 1930’s in Europe to
                  his government in Argentina, but wasn’t quite a complete fascist,
                  although some may consider this debatable. In Chile, Pinochet was
                  extremely fascist, but again, this was not a title he accepted.

                  For further reading, I recommend Ernst Nolte, Zeev Sternhell, and Kershaw regarding the Nazis in particular.

                  (At least two others have explained it to you already, but read this and maybe learn something about the term you so loosely throw around.)

        • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 15:29

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

          They don’t mention “freedom of association” as a defining characteristic. I checked 5 dictionary sites, none even mention “freedom of association” at all.

          Just because you call that Great Dane a beagle doesn’t actually mean that it IS a beagle. Beagle characteristics aren’t mentioned in the definition of “Great Dane.”

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 15:38

            WIKI – “the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

            • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 15:43

              Wow, thanks for the totally off-point cite.

              The Supremes were NOT defining fascism. So you still didn’t address the issue at hand. Actual definitions don’t agree with your definition of fascism, and the Supremes didn’t address fascism.

              But nice (lame) try at sidestepping. Next up – shuffle ball change!

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 15:51

            OK, then

            I didn’t say freedom of association was in anyones definition of fascism.

            But it is necessarily true if you support state-mandated authoritarian associations which is how fascists impose their views.

            If you think there is another way, tell us.

            The definition I supplied was for fascism with a small “f”. NOT Italian Facism with a capital “F”.

            • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 18:36

              Let’s use your own words to prove you either a liar, or simply incompetent…

              “I didn’t say freedom of association was in anyones definition of fascism.

              Yet, when someone doubted you knew the definition of fascism, this was your reply:

              “I certainly do!
              Fascism: the authoritarian/political view in the concept of state-mandated associations to achieve political/social goals (left or right).”

              You may not have said the specific words that “freedom of association was in anyone’s definition of fascism.” What you DID do is even worse: You gave a definition that EXPRESSLY stated that the defining characteristic of fascism was in how it treated freedom of association.

              Apparently, in your world, “anyone” doesn’t include you. One of those two statements I quoted is a lie. The other is wrong. And even your lie points out how the other is wrong.

              Just wait! Someday you’ll be able to try out for the 5th Grade Debate Team! (But they’ll expect you to adhere to standard definitions of words, and not simply redefine them to your purposes.)

              • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 18:46

                I don’t doubt the definition that I gave and also supported by many others too !

                As I said, ALL fascists must violate freedom of association to impose state-mandated associations on others – which is what fascists do to get to their ends. They don’t go to prayer and wish for things to come true.

                That’s why they are called authoritarian.

                If you have a short and concise definition of fascism that is not a 3 paragraph treaty, please provide it.

                • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 19:20

                  You gave a bogus definition, not supported by any dictionary that I can find, and saying that others believe it really doesn’t change that fact. Por ejemplo:

                  People still believe the earth is flat, that it’s only 6,000 years old, that the lizard people run our government, all attacks on Americans are gubmint false flag operations, Obama can control the weather, Hitler and Elvis are both still alive, that the moon is hologram, and that the moon landing itself was fake (hologram… Duh!) humans rode dinosaurs and used ’em to build the pyramids, and the pyramids were grain silos, the REAL Paul McCartney died in ’68 or ’69, the middle ages didn’t exist and this is actually 1717 CE, and so on…

                  All available evidence points to them being hilariously wrong. Just like you.

                  Why should we trust anything you say? You redefine words (dishonest,) deny your own words(dishonest,) misrepresent others’ words (dishonest,) never back up any of your pronouncements (incompetent or cowardly,) and appeals for others to do your research for you (lazy.)

                  Can YOU provide a definition of fascism that AGREES with any credible source? Cuz “some people agree with me” isn’t exactly credible, as I showed.

                  Provide a fact, or I will have to assume that you are lazy liar unable to hold a rational and factual conversation. I predict you cannot find any credible source that agrees with a DAMN thing you say. The single solitary corroboration you have provided didn’t actually corroborate shite. It just had a couple words that YOU used. And that was the best you had, apparently, for support… “I used some of those words too!” (Note the correct usage of “too” O Great Grammarian)

                  • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 19:55

                    I noticed you wouldn’t supply a short and concise definition of fascism.

                    I never said I was going to give a definition approved by some authority.

                    I gave the one I have and believe in and others support, It was short and concise . If you don’t want to accept them then that is up to you.

                    Here are some quotes and the article it appears in

                    AND YES, is not verbatim equal to mine – but clearly shows the ties.

                    “In other words, for Gramsci, Fascism violates the principle of association[1]”

                    ” Now, I’m not claiming that violating the principle of association is sufficient to answer The Question of Fascism — but I do urge that it is necessary, and if you look at history, obvious.”

                    “That’s (Bernie) Sanders and the principle of association which, you will recall, is important for anti-fascists to uphold, and whose violation is at least one sign of fascism’s onset.”

                    “I’ve urged that violating the principle of association should be on any checklist that proposes to answer The Question of Fascism. I’ve also urged that upholding the principle of association is essential to fighting it.

                    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/07/clinton-sanders-the-american-principle-of-association-and-fascism.html

                    • whatthe46 July 27th, 2016 at 20:02

                      “I gave the one I have and believe in and others support, It was short and concise.” which means, you don’t know the definition. make up shite and call it fact. well, you stupid people tend to think alike, look at tRump and his supporters.

                    • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 22:33

                      No. I told you to do your own research. I also asked to provide a credible source for your interpretation. You can’t do that either. Can’t research the subject, and can’t provide support for your definition. So, obviously, you choose ignorance and have nothing other than what you pull out of your ass to back up your position.

                      You have NOTHING that can corroborate your view of the world. And you want other people to do all the hard work for you, so you can then ignore the facts and then just make shite up. You are an empty suit, a prattling lack-wit with a serious chip on your shoulder that the world doesn’t work the way you want it to. Tough shite, buddy. Either be a man, do your OWN damn work, SUPPORT your positions, or be content with a reputation as an ignorant and deluded fool.

                      Since I have seen no evidence to the contrary, you must be an ignorant and deluded tool.

                      I predicted thusly:
                      “I predict you cannot find any credible source that agrees with a DAMN thing you say.”

                      Some guy on nakedcapitalism agrees with you. I’m sorry, but a financial blog is not a credible source on political ideology. I also can find blogs that say the Lizard Men run the gubmint. Alex Jones isn’t credible either.

                      But thanks for validating my prediction. Said you couldn’t get it up, and your flaccid source proved it.

    • jybarz July 27th, 2016 at 11:32

      WTF are you talking about? You’re just talking through your ass like Tramp.

      Nobody is forcing you or anyone to enjoy the civil rights others are entitled to have.
      You don’t have to use Obamacare, roads, hospitals, everything the country has done or built for the people to enjoy and are entitled as their rights.

      Libertarian my ass! Go FYS!

      • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 11:53

        You disagree that people own their own labor ? I assume not.

        How can you support that while at the same time support a procalimed state right that gives people the right to that labor/service/care ? Else it could never be a right, could it?

        What if people refuse to provide that care/service/labor (refuse to be bought) ? How do you enforce that right of care & service to people now ? Tell me, please … if you know that answer !

        And try to keep the insults down … People may even believe you could be intelligent someday.

        • Budda July 27th, 2016 at 13:11

          What H are you talking about?

          • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 13:28

            He thinks he’s on to something profound.

            • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 14:24

              He sees profundity; most of the rest of the world sees gibberish.

        • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 13:27

          Once again, who is being forced to provide service without compensation?

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 14:18

            That wasn’t what I said! The question is how is the state going to provide for your right to health care WHEN those providing that care refuse to do so ?

            The question isn’t what is happening now but rather what the concept of having a right to the care or service of others means!.

            Southern Plantation owners thought they had a right to the care and service of their cotton by blacks .

            • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 14:24

              The question is how is the state going to provide for your right to health care WHEN those providing that care refuse to do so ?
              _____

              That has always happened in elective cases.
              In 1986 Reagan signed EMTALA, which MANDATES care.

              • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 14:35

                And I never said I supported that.

                You have a strange habit of pointing to laws and what others did in the past to validate your views

                I want you to inform us tell us how the state will protect your “right” to health care labor when those people providing it choose not to do so anymore. Remember this is a “right” !

                • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 14:41

                  No, I have a habit of knowing some history and being able to spot selective outrage and BS.

                  My husband and I have worked in healthcare for over 40 years.
                  Most providers are opposed to your Ayn Radian/Austrian Utopia.
                  Many because they have seen healthcare in libertarian paradises.

                  • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 14:46

                    I didn’t ask what others supported of my view.

                    I did ask that you answer the question about your view as to what the right to the health care (provided by the labor of others) means and implies when those people refuse to provide that labor !

                    Seem you don’t want to answer.

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 14:50

                      “I didn’t ask what others supported of my view.”
                      ________________________
                      Is that a sentence?

                      I AM a healthcare laborer.
                      There is no threat that we will refuse that care because it is a very good field by all parameters, and it is where most job growth is and has always occurred.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 14:59

                      There is a threat if you are promising others have a “RIGHT” to that health care (labor) ! a right ! Not a privilege!

                      And that is because no one can have a right to the labor/care/service of others without claiming involuntary servitude (slavery) is acceptable if it is needed to support that right.

                      Southern Plantation owners believed in Cotton Care :)

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 15:05

                      No, there is not.
                      Healthcare providers also see it as a right.
                      They don’t agree with your hopes for a third world dystopia.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 15:18

                      Whether something is a right or not certainly doesn’t rely on what providers of anything have to or approve.

                      What if they are the ones who refuse to provide that service and rather go out of busines ?

                      Tell us how you will see our “right” to healthcare is supported ?

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 15:36

                      What if they did that before?
                      What if no one wants to get the education necessary??
                      What if no one wants to accept the pittance that private insurers will pay???
                      What if no one wants to accept Medicare???
                      In the 90s they said, “What if no one wants to care for aids patients”?

                      Some of them did.
                      New ones step up.
                      So what?

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 15:44

                      anyone who is going to claim that the labor/service/care of others – including health care – of others is a right is also claiming that people have a right to that labor/care/service.

                      NO ONE has a right to the labor/(health) care/service that belongs to others

                      Even if you support it.

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 15:47

                      Thankfully, the majority of people don’t agree.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 16:10

                      LOL, there goes the appeal to authority / majority / law etc.

                      Always a fall back when you have no answer

                      Why can’t YOU answer the question yourself!

                      Do you think the state can promise people the RIGHT to the labor/service/ or (health) care provided by others/laborers ?

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 17:04

                      Majority??
                      What does that have to do with your just simply being wrong and parroting objectivist hooey.
                      No one, not the state, the private sector or the king can really promise anything.

                      It’s a stupid premise.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 17:11

                      You are the one who pointed to the majority that it did not believe as I do – as if that automatically make their view or your view correct or mine wrong.

                      “Thankfully, the majority of people don’t agree.”

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 17:17

                      Yes,and the majority does not believe in the tooth fairy either.
                      I appealed to the majority not as evidence that you view is wrong, (I don’t think you actually HAVE a well thought out view), but in appreciation for advanced civilization that values life.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 17:29

                      Really? You consider promising people they have a RIGHT to others labor / service / or (health) care as somehow advanced ?

                      Does the view that people have a right to the labor of others represent valuing life ? Sounds more like demeaning to me.

                      The idea other people have a right to other’s labor is disgusting

                      And I don’t give a damn if Jesus was the one who said it.

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 17:38

                      Absolutely.
                      Yes.
                      It is human nature and the way that civilization has evolved from brutality.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 17:44

                      Human nature to support the right to the labor of others? People naturally support involuntary servitude or slavery ?

                      You and those old souther plantation owners have much in common.

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 17:49

                      Human nature to want to provide and receive services and to be willing to labor for it, just like farming and policing.

                      Man, you ARE just one big fallacy of logic aren’t you?
                      Not to mention the king of the straw man…. And a drama queen to boot.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 17:57

                      Willing to labor for something IS FAR DIFFERENT than the state saying that one’s labor , service, or (health) care is someone else’s right !

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 18:10

                      No one is forcing anyone to work.
                      The rights are based upon willingness to labor for something.
                      It is the same as the right to police or the right to bear arms.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 18:20

                      Again, I didn’t say what is currently happening

                      The idea that people like you actually believe you and others have the right to the labor or service or care provided by others is disgusting.

                      A very fascist concept that when people refuse to be paid for these services or provide them voluntarily THEN the state WILL have to force laborers to provide their service/care/labor in order to preserve your CLAIMED right to that labor that you believe in

                    • OldLefty July 27th, 2016 at 18:27

                      The idea that people like you actually believe you and others have the right to the labor or service or care provided by others is disgusting.
                      ______
                      Nobody believes that.
                      I find it hilarious that you need to spin it that way, (I think because you seem to like to repeat one flawed meme over and over again).
                      Really, you should be careful about spinning like that this close to hurricane season.

                      Who said anything about the state forcing anybody to provide labor???

                      And how does that not apply to police, soldiers, farmers and firearms and those who work at water and sewage plants?

                      So basically, at any moment people may decide to ‘ refuse to be paid” for any or ALL work.

                      So what?

                    • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 17:37

                      “Do you think the state can promise people the RIGHT to the labor/service/ or (health) care provided by others/laborers ?”

                      Yes, they can. If you don’t like it, change it or find your utopia elsewhere.

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 16:02

            Currently ? The taxpayer at a minimum

            The question is not what IS currently happening but what promising others that they have a right to someone else’s labor or service or (health) care does imply.

            Southern plantation owners believed in cotton care

            No one is entitle to the labor or service or (health) care of others/laborers

            • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 17:35

              You’re making no sense. We are doing nothing now that can be construed as forcing some to labor for free. If you’re referring to taxes, get over it.

              • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 17:46

                Do you believe people have a right to the labor / service / (health) care provided by others?

                Does that make sense ?

                • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 17:52

                  If you are referring to programs we provide through taxes then my answer is yes.

              • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 18:03

                But it goes much further than that,

                The state is claiming you have an actual right to the labor/service/care from others .

                As for taxes, we all know they are taken from people by force if necessary.

                “theft is the taking of another person’s property without that person’s permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

                a definition of theft

                • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 18:18

                  When will you realize that I don’t really care about your distorted views?

                  • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 18:24

                    LOL, then why have you been replying to them ?

                    Please don’t if you have no ideas you are willing to defend or possibly admit might actually be wrong !

                    But I already know that is too much to hope for :D

                    • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 18:33

                      Because you’re a troll and trolls deserve harassment.

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 18:39

                      That may be. I troll to support defend our civil right to freedom of association that so many don’t believe in anymore.

                      But even being a troll doesn’t come near to making what I say untrue :)

                      It certainly pisses people off who hope things might be different and who can’t resolve issues like these.

                    • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 18:53

                      Somebody took your freedom of association?

                    • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 19:27

                      Yes, I have a friend who owns a company with which I wanted to have an economic association.

                      I would provide him service for a relatively low wage and he would give me a recommendation for another job I wanted.

                      But because of the minimum wage, (state-mandated wage), that association was prohibited by the state – violating my freedom of association – mandating I must be payed more or I cannot have that association which is the association THAT I WANTED..

                      That’s like telling gays the can have marriage associations – just not with the same sex.

                      We have many other state-mandated associations, particularly economic associations, where the state can and does control whether that association can or will be possible despite the fact that those who wish to make or form that association do so willingly..

                    • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 20:29

                      You could donate your time and get the recommendation you desire.

    • whatthe46 July 27th, 2016 at 11:48

      If it weren’t for tRump, I’d brand you the stupidest mf’er on the planet.

      • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 12:17

        Yes, anyone who doesn’t believe in your left-wing fascist view is stupid, right ?

        Such a LIBERAL person you are ? :D

        • whatthe46 July 27th, 2016 at 12:34

          You constantly spew stupid.

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 12:39

            You constantly spew insults just like all those rednecks on Twitter I see on the Alan Colmes account/page.

            The only difference is that you are a blueneck – with nothing to offer.

            • whatthe46 July 27th, 2016 at 12:54

              Stop spewing stupid and I’ll stop insulting you. And since I don’t see that happening in your future, stay prepared.

        • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 14:07

          “anyone who doesn’t believe in your left-wing fascist view is stupid, right ?”

          Strawman argument. She didn’t say that anyone who disagrees is stupid. She said YOU are stupid. But you lie that fact into a massive attack against ANYBODY WHO DISAGREES. Still can’t address what is actually said. You have lie about it and then attack based on your own damn lie. Dishonest, chickenshit, yellow-bellied, juvenile way of dealing with challenge.

          • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 14:43

            No, but I said so – just like she said so.

            If one is a valid statement, then so is the other.

            I suggest people stop relying on insults as if that ever proved a point.

            More likely it proves that the one starting the insults has nothing to add to the conversation.

            • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 14:55

              “If one is a valid statement, then so is the other.”

              Let us explore that premise a little bit…

              Ducks are birds. Ducks are lawn-mowers. Doesn’t work

              Hapless is right. Hapless is wrong Doesn’t work

              You are stupid. Everybody who disagrees is stupid. Doesn’t work

              Jesus is Lord. Clapton is Gawd. Doesn’t work

              Grapes are sweet. Alum is sweet. Doesn’t work

              There seems to be a pattern here… false logic fails.

              • Howard Pearce @HAPlibertarian July 27th, 2016 at 15:03

                But insults are insults regardless of the words one puts together.

                Whether someone calls you a stupid duck or a stupid dog makes no difference

                I understand that you might believe that insulting those of whom you disapprove as a valid argument

                • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 15:20

                  You undercut your own argument.

                  “If one is a valid statement, then so is the other.”

                  If I call you a duck, and you ARE a duck, then I am correct. If I call you a dog, and you are NOT a dog. then I am wrong. This shows quite clearly that it DOES make a difference what someone calls you. Which, not surprisingly, also totally blows the “one is as valid as the other” proclamation out of the water.

                  I understand that you might believe that spewing nonsense, lies, aspersions, and claiming knowledge you don’t possess are valid arguments. But you have YET to actually prove a single point you’ve made. Not. One. Single. Solitary. Point. You HAVE lied about what people have said when they challenged any of the points you’ve failed to prove.

          • Suzanne McFly July 27th, 2016 at 18:44

            I feel I need to talk to you bpollen, you seem to be holding your anger in and I think you are going to hurt yourself. Tell us how you really feel, you will feel so much better after, I promise. lol

            • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 19:25

              My Bullshit Tolerance filter is getting clogged from all the BS coming from ol’ Hapless… And it is the SAME bull every time. Lie about what words mean, lie about what his own words were, lies about what any challenger says, the “look it up for me cuz I’m so precious” shtick….

              Thanks.

              • Suzanne McFly July 27th, 2016 at 21:05

                I hear you man, I wish we could get big plugs and cork their mouths. What a beautiful world it would be.

              • Hirightnow July 27th, 2016 at 21:16

                Yeah, and a “simple,less than 3 sentence definition” of a political ideology with a complex history…he doesn’t want much, does he?

                • bpollen July 27th, 2016 at 21:52

                  It’s just a ploy so he can rail against reality as being biased against political middle-schoolers.

    • Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 13:26

      Who is being forced to provide service without compensation?

  4. robert July 27th, 2016 at 10:19

    Rush seems to have a problem with historical facts

  5. mistlesuede July 27th, 2016 at 10:32

    I have to admit only reading the first paragraph of what he said. It was enough.

    • Suzanne McFly July 27th, 2016 at 18:42

      Ha, you got further than I did, good job :)

  6. mistlesuede July 27th, 2016 at 10:45

    It just kills him a little more each day of this awesome President’s two terms that there are the wrong colored people (according to his racist mind) in the White House.

  7. Jack E Raynbeau July 27th, 2016 at 13:23

    Shut up already, you fat, stinking gasbag.

  8. bunya July 27th, 2016 at 14:14

    “…and I think that’s a no-win situation for us because we’ve made great stride.”
    Poor Rush. He personally worked so, so hard to free the slaves, and this is the thanks he gets. Now, Rush doesn’t want you liberals to get the idea that he’s some sort of bigot, BUT……

    • Suzanne McFly July 27th, 2016 at 18:41

      Now that is a big BUT lol.

  9. Liberalguy July 27th, 2016 at 16:51

    He needs to let it go, I mean his grasp on the entire pizza he is stuffing in his pie hole!

Leave a Reply