Scientific evidence from reliable government sources that prove conservatives are bat*hit crazy:

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

Brought to you by the fine people at Stanford, University of Maryland, Berkeley, and University of Virginia.

Fear and hatred are useful to motivate the weak minded.

I've maintained for years that there's something about the brain and mindset of right-wingers.

They have a need to be told constantly that they are right...a need for constant validation of their worldview...constant justification for their prejudices... affirmation that their fears are warranted...verification of their suspicions.

Progressives/liberals don't have this need. This is why Faux News Channel dominates so completely in the cable news ratings. And it's why Rush Limbaugh makes such an ungodly amount of money while liberal talk radio has never really gotten off the ground in any meaningful way.

I have a relative who almost never turns Faux News Channel OFF. She and I have discussed this multiple times. She just can't see that she is a junkie...and Faux is her dealer.

OK! HERE I AM PANICKING! Whooooo-hoooooooo!

Why are we even talking about Rush? He's a human piñata of idiocy, an all too easy target for anyone with half (or perhaps less) of a brain. Paying any attention to him at all, even heaping scorn on him, is like picking at a scab; it just makes it worse.

Well...if Dr. Seuss can can conspire with the Obama admin to "indoctrinate" our children with his Lorax, I don't see why Batman cannot.

Haven't anybody learn anything about the existence of the Time Machine the past couple of weeks? How else can you explain a "Retroactive Retirement" or "Self Deportation"?

Insanity brought to you by the Schizophrenic Party.

Look. Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, here is the deal: Don't mess with a woman who is smarter than you and who went to College and actually graduated multiple times until she went Degree Terminal.

Especially do not mess with one who actually checks facts and stuff and especially, especially do not mess with one who really and truly checks facts and stuff after being suckered by a parody "vampire" thingy couple years ago.

Do not mess with such a woman, Rusty, Just aint smart.

@Sofferclese...OMG, you said "brain" and that sounds like "Bain"! Do you think that was accidental? ;)

To be fair staged callers are pretty common throughout clear channel, and most likely other networks as well. It's not just the conservative talk radio shows, but the liberal/progressive ones as well.

Are there any REAL progressive/liberal radio shows still on the air other than the FEW remaining like Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy????

Trolls have been out in force lately. Good rule of thumb: Don't feed the trolls!

Can you also disinvite Timmy3, if for nothing else than excessive spamming?

Attention feeds trolls. Ignore them and they must suffer like a fart in the wind, unheard and unsmelt.

Grumpy...,

I heartily agree! It is a convenient fantasy to believe that ignoring the malicious somehow chastens them. Since they are incapable of shame, they cannot feel chastened. I observed years ago, on Usenet news groups that if people actually do ignore them, the trolls flatter themselves that the haynus libruls are afraid of them.

Well, my "Don't feed the trolls" advice comes straight out of my Usenet/listserv days, and it always seemed to work.

With one caveat, in a closely integrated long-term community where everyone knows everyone else, in my case, the Xenaverse listserv in the time of the show Xena: Warrior Princess. A public list, it was hit by the long-running "Joxer Wars." But these were true flame wars-- the Xena-Gabrielle Subtext War being settled out of hand when TPTB confirmed that they indeed WERE putting subtext into the show between the two female leads.

So they weren't "trolls" per se. The Universal Studios Xena "Nutforum" was more the true home of trolls, hit and run adolescent boys who would snark along the same lines as the folks on Twitter who think calling Rachel a man is the funniest joke ever. The #Maddow Twitter stream is a home for a lot of those kind of trolls, so I curate my own stream to avoid them. More of the old IRC/Usenet variety. This space pulls in trolls that are more of the hard-to-find BBS/listserv variety. It takes more commitment to be here, to engage here. This space is far superior to the Facebook #Maddow space for the same reason-- not because of trolls specifically, but because of all the shallow sharing and "me too's."

But the Joxer Wars just wouldn't die on the Xenaverse list, and these were long-term, committed fans. Joxer-haters vs. Joxer-lovers, neither side would back down. Finally the list split, just like a small town church, one side just tired and over it, went off and formed private, invitation-only groups, and the wider world was poorer because of it. Joxer-lovers (mostly men, mostly those who like The Three Stooges more than anything else on Earth) were in the minority, but no way no how were they ever going to shut up about it.

But not feeding trolls isn't the same as giving ascent. I mean, you could claim (rightfully, I think) that Rush Limbaugh et. al. are the mass media equivalent of trolls, and no one would argue that they should go unchallenged or unrefuted, if, for no other reason than the example of the Egyptian protesters who apparently believe Flat Earthers online as well.

But I think Rush is like the long-term type in the Joxer Wars. The stereotypical troll isn't mouth-foaming only to mouth-foam. That kind of troll is trying to instigate a specific EFFECT, and so, to allow that instigation to be successful is to play right into his hands.

I won't say that I've never been a troll a time or two in my life. Back when I was studying the rhetorical structure of flame wars, I found one definition of triggering a flame war that called it "Graffiti on the Establishment." A way to walk into "enemy territory" and give them the finger.

Yeah, that can be fun, in a twisted sort of way. Like infiltrating anti-abortion protests in the group "Ladies Against Women," in the same manner as that parody protest group "Billionaires for Bush." That was fun.

But another kind of trolling doesn't come from the divergent outlier. This is more of the bullying troll who seeks to marginalize outliers, what is called "herding the stray."

I'm gonna date myself, but here's an example of that kind of troll, from a VERY old movie (it doesn't seem that old to me)-- Kristy McNichol, Tatum O'Neal and Matt Dillion in the summer camp movie "Little Darlings." (It is sick how much I loved that movie) Read about it on IMDB, young puppies. You know the chick on there that instigates/shames the two characters into the "who loses their virginity first" contest? Yeah, her. SHE'S one of these kind of trolls. The mean girl who hates anyone who is different, but is projecting her own difference and inadequacies (oh man, why couldn't I see that back then?).

So some trolls are self-appointed "stray-herders," and unfortunately, a lot of those as grown ups tend to be the Republican variety. Bullies. Arrogant. They like the IDEA of representing what they think is the establishment. They're horrified at the idea of being an outlier, let alone leaving graffiti on the establishment.

I don't even mean like Jack Abramoff's and Karl Rove's college-age election manipulation-phreaking either. They are a weird case. Outlaws breaking rules, running cons, using any-means-to-ends crassness to mess up the process. Sort of more like sneaky Brown Shirts than anything.

But back to the question (did somebody Call the Question?): CAN THESE TROLLS BE SAFELY IGNORED?

This is our playground, right? Granted, trolls can make it intolerable here (spamming the channel, like hitting return over and over to put blank lines on IRC)-- but that is easily stopped with the moderators.

Like 4-chan phreakers, they could invade in larger numbers, fill this world with flying penii or what-have-you. I think they probably have other, more fruitful grounds to phreak on, like Planned Parenthood or something more visible. We're sort of too hidden for it to be satisfying for that kind of trolling.

So instead you get Timmy. Who seems really easy to ignore. Just reply to the threads and people you're interested in. Select Your Own Society. Shut the Door on the Not-So-Divine Majority.

They can be fun to practice arguments on. Especially if you're good at it. Easy to make them look foolish, like low-hanging fruit. It isn't good to always preach to the choir.

But a waste of your energy, the rest of the time. Especially if they truck in pure-D irrationality. That's futile, sort of like trying to debate with a drunk person.

Just for the record,...

Rush said following the above quote:

And there's now a discussion out there as to whether or not this is purposeful and whether or not it will influence voters.

He didn't weigh in on whether or not this "discussion" was truthful or not. BUT, he did go on the say how the Democrats might use it.

The rhetorical question and lead in was a set up. "What do you think? Accidental?" Rush is in the entertainment business. People don't listen to him because they are enthralled by political analysis. They listen because he is entertaining. And, like all entertainment, it is viewed as genius by some and trash by others. The "Three Amigos" and "Battleship Earth" come to mind.

It shows what an evil genius Obama is: to be engineering this since the early 90's, knowing that he would be running for re-election against Romney against a backdrop of social anxiety about the economy and public distrust of the elite financial institutions like Bain. It's either this or Obama is a complete incompetent who is a Manchurian-created, illegal alien, communism-promoting, teleprompter-reading empty suit who is way over his head.

Honestly, it's hard to keep the tinfoil theories straight these days.

Actually, this is all part of the President's parents plan they came up with in 1960 to destroy the country. You know the one where they fixed things so their son would become president.

His parents were smarter than the mice in "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Queue the ominous music for Rush

I wonder if Mitt's magic underwear foretold his future run for the presidency back then...

It gets even better, Bane was created by Chuck Dixon, who is actually very conservative guy. Rush is an idiot.

Oh, bull, RobDon. People don't listen to Rush for entertainment value. I can actually sit and watch people who are listening, nodding in agreement with the points Rush makes, muttering "damned right!" in hushed tones. He's the mouthpiece for the ultraright. I can cite examples, but you Rush apologists will simply call me a "left-wing wacko" and deny it.

First it's the Hawaiian newspaper and birth announcements and now this. Where will it all end?

Or could it be a retroactive conspiracy?

David, if you read many of my posts here you'll find I think name calling is juvenile. I think your anecdotal evidence is valid. I just think that all of Rush's audience does not fall into that category. The same could be say for TRMS. Many of the posts here (not all by any stretch) could be defined as the equivalent of "nodding."

But, valid point taken.

A person is listening to someone giving verifiable information starts to nod their head in agreement is not the same as nodding in agreement when the speaker is blathering about unicorns and flying monkeys. Big difference.

Always nice to see RobDon here again, demonstrating the "RobDon" is a synonym for "Homo Sap", the hairless biped that lacks frontal lobes and opposable thumbs.

RobDon thinks namecallers are just big ol' poopyheads!

"David, if you read many of my posts here you'll find I think name calling is juvenile."

This tweaks my irony meter.

Sorry there, RobDon, but the whole entertainment thing is Rush's copout when people criticize him. It's another of his whoppers, which you've evidently bought.

While I don't think Rush believes all the nonsense he puts out, he does have a political agenda. (Clearly his #1 agenda is his paycheck.) While people may be entertained by listening to him, the entertainment is mainly getting their POV stoked, and the mocking of those they disagree with (though the liberal that's presented by people like Rush is a fabrication and exaggeration that's easy to dislike). Rush supports a conservative political agenda, and he feeds his mindless audience what they want to hear so that they vote the way he wants them to.

While some of the posts here could be classified as nodding, there's a vast difference in what's being nodded at. For one, Rachel doesn't traffic in propaganda and made-up idiocy. In this case it's people nodding at a blowhard being proven wrong.

Sorry there, RobDon, but the whole entertainment thing is Rush's copout when people criticize him.

I don't necessarily disagree here. The "entertainment thing" can't be used to cover factual errors. But, Ms. Maddow uses satire at times where if taken without the context of satirical humor one could easily misinterpret here words and intent. But, I agree with your point.

Rush supports a conservative political agenda...there's a vast difference in what's being nodded at.

While Mr. Limbaugh is "over the top" with his methods, his conservative political agenda is not too far off mainstream. You see the Liberal mindset as logical and valid, Conservatives see their views similarly.

I think two fairly recent statements that illustrate both sides willingness to run with something...In the primary, Romney said he liked the to have the ability to fire people (synonymous in context with service providers like insurance companies) that were not doing what they were being paid to do. But the Left said, he meant he liked firing people. Similarly, the Right is taking President Obama's quote about small business owners out of full context as well.

Our primary "both sides" spinmeister is spinning so fast, he may burst into flame at any moment! Stay tuned, folks!

I've got it; Willard is secretly Harvey Dent, AKA Flip Flop, I mean Etch A Sketch, oops, I really mean Two Face...... Uncanny. P.S. I'm gonna go off if they start in on the X-men......

RobDon, I haven't even addressed whether the conservative POV is valid from the standpoint of effective, practical governance. I was referring to Rush's regular deviation from the facts, his outlandish conspiracy theories, and the general demonization of Democrats and liberals, in general, and Obama in particular.

It's true that both sides do use out-of-context quotes. Though so far Romney has set the bar w/ his early-on use of Obama's quoting of McCain's camp not wanting to talk about the economy or they'll lose. That wasn't just an exaggeration; it was completely opposite of what Obama said.

But that veers off topic because we're not talking about hyperbole; we're talking about fabrication, which is Rush's forte, and what he did regarding "Bane."

As usual , the gop Robdon's think they can pass it off as BOTH SIDES ARE DOING IT bull splatt, all of the sudden it is ETERTAINMENT/ JUST JOKING AROUND after they get busted , as Rachel is pointing out ....Every conservative in america tries to pull that off

Ron is going to compare RMS to The Ditto Head Series now?

Here is the kicker RobDon , I will assume you know a typical Rush listener , so you know they repeat his supposed comedy as the bible , people like you who try and sell RUSH as legitimate , are as deplorable as rushes pie hole...RUSH and the ditto heads are one and the same , they believe ALL of their delusions , pretending they DO NOT it a really bad joke

Patango,

I agree completely. As a practical matter, it is not really possible that he doesn't know what those people are like.

I don't think that's it. Addiction can be cured, but there isn't any cure for bad to the bone.

Addiction cannot be cured, it can only be managed. Just wanted to point that out.

True, but "Addiction can be managed, but bad to the bone can't be" just seems to lack a certain je ne sais quois.

heh? jpinsc

In other words, Riley, Rush is happy *any time his name gets mentioned, because, like the dog in the famous Far Side cartoon, all his audience hears is "blah blah blah Rush blah blah blah Rush blah." And they're happy because they think the big blowhard is influential among people other than the brain-dead.

I'll try to translate Riley. "Ain't no bad rep", specially when homey's crew can't know their own s**t stinks. I be diggin this show, but this is a waste. Fat boy's crew just be wantin to throw down more. OK?

Mr. Lehmberg I only regret that I could only give you the one happy arrow up: that was worth four or five, at the very least. he he. Love it.

He said as much yesterday,

The thought is that when they start paying attention to the campaign later in the year, and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, Romney and Bain, that these people will think back to the Batman movie, "Oh, yeah, I know who that is."

Funny, Rob, Rush won't take callers that disagree with him. He also claims to be 'entertainment,' but gets really serious and extreme in his views when people disagree with him. He is a personally insulting person, which is not entertainment. He tries to personally affect governmental policy, which is not entertainment. I can cite you pages, off your misguided quote, where Rush is not in the mainstream of the conservative mainstream; I challenge Mitt Romney to start quoting Rush. I don't think in a liberal or conservative mindset, I use pragmatism of what is best. Rush did say it was a conspiracy, then lied about it today, and he is outraged again. Is that humor, fake outrage, hurt feelings; what is it Robb?????

It would be Rustard - he has more "girth" & hot air.....

It is never a waste of time to be civil. I submit however that in this case being civil was an intentional attempt to drive Rush even crazier. The right wing fear mongers seem to really get rev-ed up when you calmly reply to their remarks. You are supposed to go battty with them so they can appear to be at least on a level playing field.

Great response Rachel. Your answer reminds me of reading old diaries or stories written with great care and thoughtfulness-shame such discourse is out of style with so many people these days.

The right wing fear mongers seem to really get rev-ed up when you calmly reply to their remarks. You are supposed to go battty with them so they can appear to be at least on a level playing field.

More to the point, they want you to go bonkers so they can appear to be the rational, reasonable ones by comparison. You are so right. Keep being civil and polite, they will eventually blow a gasket because they can't get a reaction. This is how bullies worked in 8th grade. Rush Limbaugh is in the same category.

...unless Rush is willing to cite who is having this discussion and where, then like his many other undocumented and undocumentable references, one must surmise it is merely a dialogue heard only in his own head...

He did today. Here's one from July 16th. It even quotes a Democrat advisor:

Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar...

Thus proving Rush's point that the Democrats will use this. So, now I guess you agree with Rush, huh?

Rush also said:

"Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?"

Which is why we're making fun of him. You're avoiding the main point of Maddow's commentary. Rush wasn't merely saying that Democrats would play off the name Bane/Bain connection. He was also insinuating that this film was released this summer, but a villain going by this name, as part of some Hollywood conspiracy to help Obama get re-elected.

Rick, President Obama also said:

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Now, do we need to look at everything he said to understand the context? Or, can we just take the quote at face value.

You mean like when MSNBC repeatedly shows the video of Romney saying "I stand by what I said" comment out of context?? But that's OK thn because it's those mean old stupid Republicans. Maybe such transparent ruses are part of the reason that MSNBC has such low ratings!

RobDon, the quote Rush is being mocked for is ONE sentence. What context outside of that statement is the qualifier that makes what he said less ridiculous?

What President Obama said was more complicated and more than one sentence which is perhaps why Fox & Friends are having such trouble. He was talking about the creation of the inter-state and state level infrastructure that allows a business to grow (roads, rail, telephone lines, power, water ... etc) AND that if you have a business you did not build THAT (the infrastructure) on your own. What annoys me is that I KNOW you know this, you're trying to play devil's advocate for someone who simply doesn't deserve it.

"What annoys me is that I KNOW you know this, you're trying to play devil's advocate for someone who simply doesn't deserve it."

That sort of thing and false equivalence are basically his reasons for being on this blog.

80sgirl: thanks for responding to RobDon. I was going to, but you did it better than I would have. all these Fox/GOP people jumping on Obama's statement about small business without having listened to the previous sentences. [or perhaps they did and just did some creative editing]

Sorry , but the Robdon's DO NOT know better , they pretend to take a moderate stance , just long enough to ply their dishonest goods , by the time they are done , they end up throwing everything they say into the gop crapper for flushing

80sGirl, there was more context to Rush's question. And just like President Obama's quote, you have to know the larger context. Rush was doing a lead in to the topic. He asked a provocative question and then went on to say how the Dems will use the association later in the year when people will be paying more attention to the Presidential race.

You might not agree about what he meant. In the end, both comments are out there for people to make up their own minds about. The sad thing is, most on the Right will not listen to all of President Obama's statement and most of the Left will not listen to (read) the rest of Limbaugh's statement.