New England Patriots superbowl victory...a victory for communism?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26358

<font color="blue">
Rush Limbaugh: Patriots'
victory un-American?
Radio host says Kennedy using Super Bowl to promote socialism

By Joe Kovacs
? 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Is this year's stunning Super Bowl victory by the New England Patriots somehow un-American?

That question is being examined by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, in the wake of celebratory remarks by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Limbaugh is reacting to Kennedy's statement on the Senate floor congratulating the team for the first NFL title in its 42-year history.

"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism," said Kennedy, "the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other and sacrifice for the greater good."

"Nobody sacrificed anything on the Patriots for the greater good!" exclaimed Limbaugh in response during yesterday's national broadcast. "That's so close to the Communist Manifesto, it's frightening. ...

"These are socialists, folks, this is what you have got to understand. To Sen. Kennedy, the New England Patriots typify socialism. That's what he means when he talks about a bunch of people sacrificing, believing in each other, working together for the greater good."

The Patriots, who went into this week's Super Bowl as underdogs, surprised many football fans with their performance, culminating with a thrilling 20-17 win over the St. Louis Rams in the final seconds. Kennedy says the victory could not have come at a more poignant time for the U.S.

"Since Sept. 11, the courageous acts of countless Americans have set a new standard for the nation," Kennedy said. "Indeed, a new American spirit has been forged. That spirit is characterized by sacrifice, humility and a refusal to quit in the face of adversity. ... In Boston, April 15 is Patriot's Day ? a day when we celebrate the brave men and women who fought for our nation's independence."

"Yes, senator ? independence," said Limbaugh rhetorically. "What does that mean? Freedom, independence. It has the same root as individual."

The conservative radio host spent 10 minutes assailing Kennedy ? a longtime liberal voice ? for alluding to last year's terrorist attacks in his comments.

"Have we been facing down individualism?" Limbaugh asked. "Who are we facing down since Sept. 11? We're facing down terrorists ? they are individualists. Do you see? This is exactly what liberals try to do. They are equating rugged individualism. There would not be an America were it not for that, ladies and gentlemen.

"This is a country founded by rugged individuals, and at the time there was no common good when some of them were out there doing what they were doing. They didn't know what the common good was going to be. All they knew is they were oppressed, and they were seeking freedom.

"So now, individuals are said to be terrorists. Individuals are these people who hijack jet aircraft and fly them into the World Trade Center, according to Sen. Kennedy. ...

"Since when did anybody say we're facing down individualism? Nobody has, but we know, thanks to Sen. Kennedy, this is what is in their minds. They are seeking to use ... the events of Sept. 11 to further their own socialist agenda. And thanks to the New England Patriots for helping it along, with their silly notion of being introduced as a team prior to football games."

Limbaugh was referring to the Patriots' season-long decision to be introduced as an entire team, rather than having the names of individual players announced before the start of each contest.

"This is not what football is; this is not what football represents. Yes, there's teamwork, but teams are made up of individuals performing individual tasks to the best they can for a common good, but it's individuals doing what they're supposed to do at the right place, at the right time which adds up to a common good being met."

Repeated calls to Kennedy's office and the New England Patriots for comment were not returned.

For years, Limbaugh has promoted the concept of "rugged individualism," heralding it as one of the ideas that has strengthened the nation's character.

"All the human beings that have lived ... no two of them are identical," he stated. "Just in that vein alone, but then you add such things as intelligence, ambition, gumption, you name it. Equality? There's no such thing, and thank God for that. Everybody's unique! Every individual is unique. And that's what this country celebrates ... the recognition that we are different."

He says perhaps statements like Kennedy's bother him more than they should, but notes it's the kind of remark that people who want to feel good about themselves lap up.

"'Sacrifice for the common good.' Well, that sounds wonderful," said Limbaugh. "Ya know, if I did that I could really feel good about myself saying I did it. I sacrificed for the common good. Well, that's socialism. And the common good ends up to be common mediocrity and misery, and you can spread that equally ... and that's what people like Ted Kennedy are trying to do."

Limbaugh even borrowed a line from President Bush's State of the Union speech, referring to House and Senate Democrats as an "evil axis," but he admitted he wasn't sure if Kennedy himself was aware of the meaning behind his Senate statement.

"I've often asked myself, 'Do liberals really know?' And I've said they can't be this stupid; they have to know, which makes it even more evil."

Limbaugh also took a swipe at Kennedy for what he believes is the Democrat's jumping onto the Super Bowl bandwagon.

"I don't think Sen. Kennedy gave a rat's rear end about the New England Patriots till they won the title," opined Limbaugh. "I never heard him talk about the Patriots. I've never seen him at a Patriots game, probably because they don't have any skyboxes where you can drink in private."</font>

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"Not to know is bad, but to refuse to know is worse." -- A Gambian Proverb

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-02-06 23:11 ]</font>

Is it just me, or is Limbaugh sounding just a tad frantic and desperate?

The times they are a changin', Rush. And you're way, way behind them.

Kiff '61

On 2002-02-07 07:44, Kiff '61 wrote:
Is it just me, or is Limbaugh sounding just a tad frantic and desperate?

The times they are a changin', Rush. And you're way, way behind them.

I can't help but laugh everytime a modern day politician or pundit uses the word "communist". It's like these people are still stuck in the 1970s or 1980s. :lol:

Actually, Limbaugh said "socialist" not "Communist." But yeah.


I don't listen to Rush and so can't say whether, on the whole, he sounds frantic, but that piece certainly merits the description. He was a 3T phenomenon. Putting down "sacrificing for the common good" against a backdrop of firefighters risking their lives in the WTC rubble isn't going to play as well today.

On 2002-02-07 07:44, Kiff '61 wrote:

Is it just me, or is Limbaugh sounding just a tad frantic and desperate?

The times they are a changin', Rush. And you're way, way behind them.

Kiff '61

Notice how he is completely silent about the Bush administration's blatant and continuously demonstrated contempt for individualism? Is not the enemy within ever more dangerous than the enemy without? After all, Limbaugh has always extolled individualism. The Flatulent One is disingenuously attempting to leave the implicit and false impression that the Bush administration is somehow for individualism. But that is standard operating procuedure for a propagandist such as himself. Hitler had Goebbels and this Bush administration has Limbaugh. The truth is ever in danger of defilement so long as Limbaugh is anywhere in the vicinity. The Flatulent One, as always, is full of Sierra Hotel India Tango.

On 2002-02-07 09:09, Stonewall Patton wrote:
The Flatulent One, as always, is full of Sierra Hotel India Tango.

I've been puzzling over that phrase of yours for a while and now I finally get it! DUH! :wink:

I didn't know where to post this...so here goes.
US Hostages in Saudi Arabia (both kidnapped as minors incidentally)
and our bleeping politicians do nothing as usual.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26357

On 2002-02-07 11:53, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-02-07 09:09, Stonewall Patton wrote:

The Flatulent One, as always, is full of Sierra Hotel India Tango.

I've been puzzling over that phrase of yours for a while and now I finally get it! DUH! :wink:

Ah, yes, let me explain. Rush Limbaugh is known to his Kool-Aid drinking clientele as the Great One. Seeing as he pollutes the national airwaves on a daily basis, I believe it is more indicative of his rare talents ("on loan from God" no less a la le Petomane) to call him the Flatulent One. As for Sierra Hotel India Tango, think of Bravo Sierra.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-02-07 12:25 ]</font>

On 2002-02-07 08:55, Brian Rush wrote:
Actually, Limbaugh said "socialist" not "Communist." But yeah.


I don't listen to Rush and so can't say whether, on the whole, he sounds frantic, but that piece certainly merits the description. He was a 3T phenomenon. Putting down "sacrificing for the common good" against a backdrop of firefighters risking their lives in the WTC rubble isn't going to play as well today.

Considering we're almost certainly still in 3T, he may not have much to worry about.

On 2002-02-07 07:44, Kiff '61 wrote:
Is it just me, or is Limbaugh sounding just a tad frantic and desperate?

The times they are a changin', Rush. And you're way, way behind them.

Kiff '61

That depends on what he means. If he means that as yet, most of the 'teamwork first' talk is fake, he's right. People are trying to play off the genuine heroism of 911, but most of it rings false to me, the more so as the weeks pass.

On 2002-02-07 07:44, Kiff '61 wrote:
Is it just me, or is Limbaugh sounding just a tad frantic and desperate?

The times they are a changin', Rush. And you're way, way behind them.

Kiff '61

I'd wait a year or so, before I declare him, dead, Kiff. With every day that passes, this looks more and more like 3T to me. The Millennials are still mostly in grade and high school, and it may be a while yet befor they had much large-scale impact.

On 2002-02-07 08:37, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-02-07 07:44, Kiff '61 wrote:
Is it just me, or is Limbaugh sounding just a tad frantic and desperate?

The times they are a changin', Rush. And you're way, way behind them.

I can't help but laugh everytime a modern day politician or pundit uses the word "communist". It's like these people are still stuck in the 1970s or 1980s. :lol:

In fairness, so is Teddy Kennedy. :smile:

On 2002-02-07 22:48, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
I'd wait a year or so, before I declare him, dead, Kiff. With every day that passes, this looks more and more like 3T to me. The Millennials are still mostly in grade and high school, and it may be a while yet befor they had much large-scale impact.

I am sure North Americia is in a 4T, the affect on public opinion of the Enron collpase is something to take note. Australia had a similar corporate colpasse with HIH in Mid 2001, It did not have the same effect of public opinion.

On 2002-02-05 11:59, Eric A Meece wrote:
Their mistake shows that we are not in 4T. When the 4T comes, people will know that drastic change is needed, and ONLY a liberal can pull it off. Then our next FDR will appear.

Actually what the USA needs is a radical with the solutions needed to tackle the problems they have facing and create a better world. That means curtailing corporate and mulitinational power and smashing the fossil fuel cartel. GW Bush cannot not do that, because he is in practical purposes a whore to these interests.

Before the USA and the Western World can tackle the enemies that face it we need to turn ourselves into that Light upon the Hill, we New World types fancy ourselves. We need to stop serving in our and the mulitinational corporate interests and act in the best interests of all of Earth's people.

On 2002-01-24 13:02, madscientist wrote:
Bill O' Reilly bashes Boomers and their "spas". 3T or 4T?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26190

Some people are still in a 3T mindset, I have chatted to a guy in the USA who is still in this mindset.

On 2002-02-07 22:48, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-07 07:44, Kiff '61 wrote:
Is it just me, or is Limbaugh sounding just a tad frantic and desperate?

The times they are a changin', Rush. And you're way, way behind them.

Kiff '61

I'd wait a year or so, before I declare him, dead, Kiff. With every day that passes, this looks more and more like 3T to me. The Millennials are still mostly in grade and high school, and it may be a while yet befor they had much large-scale impact.

Oh, Rush Limbaugh's not dead yet, HC. I never said that. But his kind of thinking is definitely on the way out. Even if, as you claim, we're not in 4T, we can't afford to be wasting our time much longer debating over whether or not Teddy Kennedy is a socialist.

Mr. Limbaugh and his rants are rapidly on the way to being irrelevant.

Kiff '61

Evidence for 4T:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/feb02/18703.asp

In Milwaukee County, County Executive Tom Ament, a Silent, faces a likely recall election after a scandal arose late last year about the enormous pensions he and his cronies were set to receive upon retirement.

Now the governor, a Boomer, is telling Ament to resign or face a recall election. The recall movement is well organized and has more than enough signatures to force a recall.

In Wisconsin, the governor has authority to remove certain county officials from office. So that option is also available.

Either way, it looks like one less Silent in public office.

And it also shows that, in Milwaukee County at least, people are not going to put up with business as usual anymore.

Kiff '61

HA - Please God - no 4T in Chicago - the mayor and the entire city council will be in jail!!! Who will run the place :->

The element of populism always rises as a 4T begins. Fourth Turnings have always began with a rebellion against the elites of society.

Not only that, we start to blame the prior 3T for the problems society is facing.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/701641.asp?0si=-

<font color="blue">
The decade of decadence

Feb. 7 ? Remember how furious conservatives were about the Clinton tax hikes of 1993? It?s hard to know just what they were so upset about. The super-rich made out like bandits anyway. Those who cashed out, Enron executive-style, are sitting pretty while the rest of us are stuck with trying to clean up the mess, figuring out where all the riches went.

WELL, HERE?S where they went. They went to the rich. According to just-released government figures, the number of Americans with million-dollar incomes more than doubled during the second half of the ?90s. Only 87,000 people made a million bucks in 1995; five years later, this figure rose to more than 205,000. And we?re not talking just a lousy million; we?re talking about an average of $3.2 million. This tiny group captured a quarter of the nation?s total personal income growth from 1995 through 1999. Remember this all took place during a Democratic administration. According to New York University economist Edward N. Wolff, wealth is more concentrated at the top in the United States than at any time since the Great Depression.

ACCOUNTING FOR THE WEALTH

Yet while the super-rich have been raking it in as never before, the contribution these people made to the federal tax pie fell by 11 percent. Because of the run-up in the stock market coupled with a cut in the capital-gains tax rate, normal people making average salaries paid a higher percentage of federal taxes than they did back when, even among the rich, a million-dollar income was still something to boast about.
What we still don?t know is just how much the alleged wealth that was created during this period was, like Enron?s, an accounting fiction or worse. Friends of Bush buddy Ken Lay and Democratic moneyman Terry McAuliffe don?t need to worry about this question. They had the information and personal contacts to know how to get out while the getting was good. Lay pocketed hundreds of millions from a failed company that left many of its investors nearly bankrupt.

McAuliffe pocketed a cool $18 million from Global Crossing on an investment of just $100,000 while that company?s honest shareholders got fleeced, Enron style. As we have learned from the inner workings of Enron and its former auditor, Arthur Andersen, these kinds of financial shenanigans are just the tip of a dirty iceberg.

EXPLOSION OF PHANTOM RICHES?
Last week, I wrote a column about the troubles I had with my cell-phone service and the response was overwhelming (See "A trip to cell hell? ) Numerous readers called the company and six different people called me at home to offer to help straighten out my bill. I was given all kinds of phone numbers to use should any trouble ever arise again ? phone numbers not available to people who do not get to have their complaints published in forum like this one. Their service, I?m guessing, will continue to stink no matter what company they choose. Just where, I?m wondering, is the big benefit of the explosion of riches in the New Economy?

Again, lots of people got very rich during the telecom explosion of the late ?90s, but how many of the gains for real people were real? The majority of everyday shareholders of companies like Cisco, Lucent, and Verizon have taken a massive beating from which it will take perhaps decades to recover. One reader jokingly credited me with creating a run on WorldCom stock, which also took it on the chin last week and is down between 65 percent and 70 percent during the past 12 months. (If only I had that kind of power?.)

TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES
In any case, it will be a long time before we know just how much of the ?90s euphoria was foolishness and how much was the collusion of criminals. There?s no doubt some of it was driven by genuine technological advances that will, over time, offer people genuine benefits in their lives.
But just about the only thing that we know for certain is that whatever happens, the rich will get richer and the rest of us will suffer the consequences.
</font>

Rush's "thinking" is so far behind the times, that it has yet to catch up to the 3T of the previous saeculum, let alone a present-day 4T that might not have arrived yet. And I think it's complimenting him too much to call what he engages in "thinking."

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-02-09 01:41 ]</font>

Regarding FDR, the 4T, etc., I'd say that from late 1929 to 1932 wasn't much time; people were very unhappy with Hoover's policies quite a while before they actually got to vote on them. Today, we only have terrorism that qualifies as a possible Crisis; it has dawned on virtually noone yet what the real Crisis is.

As serious and sobering as 9/11 is and was, it is not a systemic problem, or at least not seen as one. Terrorists are not responsible for the real Crisis we face. So I can't see how it is a catalyst for anything other than more raids by some special forces, and waste of tax money that will make the Crisis worse when it comes.

But I guess we are agreed that we'll see the evidence of it in a few years if a real Crisis has come. If things just simmer along as they are now for another 10 years, most people won't call the 00s a fourth turning.

Remember again, I predicted there would be something like this happening starting around August 2001; that it would be over by 2003 at the latest, that it would not be the "Crisis;" but that people here would call it one. It might be in the archives under astrological cycles and turnings.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-02-09 01:38 ]</font>

Sorry to interrupt but I have a question for everyone. It is obvious that some of us in this discussion think that we have entered 4T while others believe that we remain in a 3T. My question is, whichever way you think how does that belief affect your daily life? If you believe that the crisis is upon us, what actions do you take? What habits must change? We make decisions daily which bear on this question.

Personally I believe that we have just entered the early stages of a 4T. So why am I only beginning to think about preparations for this 4? It is getting late. Conversely, if I believed that we were still in 3T, recent events should be a wakeup call for me to get on with my program- whatever that is.

How seriously do we feel these things? Is this something that pertains to us on a personal level? Or is this more of an academic exercise? I am interested to know. I go back and forth on this.

On 2002-02-09 08:36, buzzard44 wrote:
Sorry to interrupt but I have a question for everyone. It is obvious that some of us in this discussion think that we have entered 4T while others believe that we remain in a 3T. My question is, whichever way you think how does that belief affect your daily life?
AS I believe we are still in the Unravelling, my life has not changed very much. I try to remain prudent about things such as money, community, relationships. I have not yet "shut-up" as I fear I will have to when the Crisis hits as the width of tolerable opinion will shrink drastically though thinking might continue.



How seriously do we feel these things? Is this something that pertains to us on a personal level? Or is this more of an academic exercise?

I am interested in T4T as history in the main, and that art has little or no predictive value as far as I can tell. It is for the moment an academic exercise, but history will get us all in the end and we will feel her grip sooner or later- be it a welcoming hug or a fearful crushing.

On 2002-02-09 08:50, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

AS I believe we are still in the Unravelling, my life has not changed very much. I try to remain prudent about things such as money, community, relationships. I have not yet "shut-up" as I fear I will have to when the Crisis hits as the width of tolerable opinion will shrink drastically though thinking might continue.

Aber unsere F?hrer hat uns das Freikorps gegeben...f?r die Kinder, unsere lieblinge Bush Junge. Wir m?ssen gute Deutsc...ahem...Amerikaner sein. Verstehen Sie mich? Also unsere F?hrer hat uns die Geheime Staatspolizei gegeben. Ja, wir m?ssen gute Amerikaner sein. Ho ho ho!


Arbeit macht frei, Herr Saari.

Singen zusammen: "...Heute Deutschla...er, Amerika...und morgen die ganze Welt...."

Heil Bush, und passieren mir die Apfelstrudel, bitte!

Buzzard asks... How seriously do we feel these things? Is this something that pertains to us on a personal level? Or is this more of an academic exercise? I am interested to know. I go back and forth on this.

Well, the economic downturn contributed significantly to my being currently unemployed after 25 years with the same company. An Enronesque ?profit for the high level managers, the heck with the rank and file employees? also contributed. (This may be yet another theme for the Fourth Turning, attached to the ?campaign finance reform? theme. The people might attempt to restrain abuse of power by the rich and powerful.) So, no, this isn?t entirely an abstract academic exercise.

I was into cycle history theory before the OKC bombing. While the Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC spiral of violence has faded, I still see us on a path towards transformation. Someone has to go through the exercise of isolating and prioritizing the issues to be addressed. I thought I?d give it a go. Still, there are too many issues, and no agreement on priorities.

A few nights ago, David Letterman had an academic on his show, an ecologist who spends his summer in the Arctic, counting birds, measuring the effects of climate change on the local animal population. There was an acceptance that global warming was real. Still, Dave thought it absurd that the middle and upper class would start living like the lower class in order to reverse global warning. I tend to agree. At this time, no one is seriously considering abandon their SUVs to prevent a few species up in the Arctic from going extinct. This is but one issue. There are many issues. None of the issues are considered important or threatening enough to slow sales of SUVs. The question is how to continue the hyperactive economy with it?s absurd divisions of wealth and spendthrift resource mismanagement. The question is not how to create a balanced and sustainable global economy.

I do believe history has predictive value. There is a strong tendency for those who benefit most from the old world order to use military force to maintain wealth and privilege. There is a strong tendency for those advocating the interests of the poor and oppressed, advocating changes reflecting new technology, to kick the privileged and powerful hard. Alas, we are the privileged and powerful this time around.

There are numerous issues. Ecology is only one. Dubya vowed on September 11th not to address root causes. He is keeping his vow. He is having enough military success that we might avoid addressing root causes for some time. While we can maintain the illusion of military success, we will not become advocates of social change, the Fourth Turning will not begin for us in earnest. It is more likely to begin in earnest abroad.

I?m seeing Afghanistan and September 11th as an echo of the Boston Tea Party, Bleeding Kansas or the Spanish Civil War. It is a preliminary event illustrating the problems, but the threat is not yet so serious that we cannot avoid basic and profound solutions. Political debate and awareness have stepped up a bit. No new policy is being seriously proposed. No major political transformation is being considered. No consensus for change has been reached. It is hoped that military force can suppress change. A brief consideration of prior crises might make one wonder.

In many ways, the problem of today?s developing history is an academic exercise, but exercises involving weapons of mass destruction are not entirely academic.