"DSK" wrote in message
...
Quote any place where any of those people said that conservatives should
be locked up, which is about the mildest thing Rush says about
libby-rulls (and other minorites).

Maxprop wrote:
It's obvious you've never listened to him.

This is an excellent example of how wrong you are, and how quick to make
insulting assumptions about those who disagree with you.

I listen (sort of) to Rush Limbaugh for many hours a week. The radio in
the shop where I work (sometimes) is tuned to a station that carries his
show.

I know you've made this claim before, but you're so often wrong about him
that I can't imagine you've actually ever heard him. Then again, if you
actually do listen to him, you're doing so from a decidely left-wing
perspective. Left-wingers think he's hateful; right-wingers think he's
truthful. I think he's an entertainer, first, last, and forever, using
shock value as a selling tool for his program.


If anything, the problem is that violent fanatacism sells, and the
liberal rabble-rousers are all too nice.


Really? Who was left-wing actor (maybe Alec Baldwin) who advocated
assassinating Ken Starr?

And in your mind, this is the same as a high ranking politicial advocating
the assassination of a sitting President?

Your example of an aging, redneck senator is hardly any different. Most
people take Alec Baldwin more seriously than Jesse Helms. But my point
stands: there is easily as much hate-speak coming from the left as from the
right. You just fail to notice, thanks to your bias.

.... I've never heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Snow, or any of the other
conservative pundits advocating violence.

Well then, you've never listened.

This is an excellent example of how wrong you are, and how
quick to make insulting assumptions about those who disagree
with you. (that was rather easy--I simply copied and pasted your remark
from above. g)




.... If you believe that there's no hate speech emanting from the left,
you're delusional.


I hear the claim made from the right quite often.
There may be some "hate speech" coming from the far-left wing, but it
certainly doesn't have it own syndicated shows & cable channels...

And why would that be?? Could it be . . . let's see . . . that left-wing
talk shows fail miserably?? That Al Franken is a complete waste of time??
Hell, if it weren't for George Soros dumping good money after bad into Air
America, that financial failure would be history.

and what little I've heard is rather mild compared to such things as
"Liberals = Traitors."

You haven't been listening. (Hmmm, that sounds familiar.)


So, wrong again... hate speech from the left is less in scale & in scope.

Once again a matter of interpretation. But the point is simply that both
extremes engage in angry, hateful rhetoric, and two wrongs don't make a
right, no matter the scale or scope.

Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, as I believe Jon tried to point
out to you.

Didn't I just say that? I'm not attempting to justify what comes from the
extreme right--they don't represent my beliefs nor do they represent those
of mainstream Americans. Neither, of course, does the extreme left.


.... Jesse Helms came from an entirely different period in our country's
history. I know of almost no one who wouldn't label him a crackpot.


He was a powerful senior Republican. He was also a man who stood by his
principles... while I disgree strongly with many of those principles, I
can respect him for that. Senator Helms was not out to line his own
pockets nor did he bend his ethics for expedience.

Does all that forgive his racism? I don't think so.

...... I used to support (financially) the ACLU for decades. As they've
completely abberated from their original agenda, I think my money was
poorly spent.

Well, there you go again. The ACLU has not changed it's purpose nor
principles for many many decades, if ever. Maybe you just weren't paying
attention.

They most certainly have, and if you are unable to see it, I'll say the same
thing to you: you just weren't paying attention. Years ago the ACLU would
have supported the rights of individuals and groups, no matter what side of
the political aisle they were on. Now they define liberalism and the
left-wing agenda. They are transparently inconsistent in their defense of
"civil liberties."



Unlike you, I listen to both sides and make up my mind.

Since you have no idea what I listen to, this is just more Bobsprit-like
blather.

Regardless of what you listen to, your left bias would indicate that your
mind is already made up.



I believe we are overtaxed and our government overspends.

well, duh

... I'm opposed to increasing income taxes, which the democrats will
surely do if they capture the White House and both houses of Congress.

Right, what this country needs is a good 5 cent cigar, and more tax cuts
for the rich.

. . . who pay a disproportionate percentage of the income and other taxes
accrued by the government to begin with. Why is it so difficult to accept
that those who pay the most should reap the largest benefit of tax cuts?
Could it be that you favor the concept of "redistribution of wealth?"
Should the rich pay a larger percentage of their income simply because they
have more? Personally I'm in favor of some sort of level taxation. Most
democrats aren't.

.... I'm in favor of fiscal responsibility on the part of our leaders,
which is why I detest the current administration.

Then why did you campaign for them so frantically?

I didn't campaign for them at all. I simply did not like Kerry. And to the
point--speaking for or against politicians in this NG would hardly define
"campaigning." If you feel that way, this NG means waaaay too much to you.

.... I believe in the US Constitution and feel strongly that it should be
preserved rather than altered or interpreted to the whims of the party in
power.

Agreed

... I'd like to see government shrunk dramatically, with some bureaus
done away with entirely, or at least reduced dramatically.

Agreed again, but I suspect we'd disagree on specifics

Not necessarily. I'd like to see accross-the-board reductions in all aspect
of government, with perhaps the sole exception of armed forces.

.... I don't care if gays want to get married--

My feelings on the subject can be pretty much summed up by the mock
protest sign "STOP Gay Marriage.... haven't they suffered enough already?"



.... I support a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah but you're not a cool "closet" gun owner like me

LOL. Right. I shoot the neighbor's cats periodically just to let them know
I'm armed to the teeth. g


... I'm strongly in favor of cleaner air, water;

Who isn't?

Many don't seem to believe we have a problem. And some industrialists just
don't give a ****.

The question is, are you in favor of environmental regulations that are
functional

Indeed, if they are truly *functional.* When such regulations are
gratuitous, failing to achieve any substantive tangible benefit and costing
businesses disproportionately to the tiny benefit reaped, they should be
discarded and lawmakers should head back to the drawing board. Sadly the
EPA seems unable to do away with poorly-functional regulations, believing
that they couldn't possibly have conceived of something ineffective, or even
harmful in the net analysis.

and actively enforced.

One of the chief problems of environmental regulations is that some are
enforced and some aren't. Occasionally the big polluter gets away with
murder, while the tiny businessman or farmer, who plowed up a "wetland" in
order to build a new building or plant some beans, gets raked over the hot
coals.

.... I'm clearly a libertarian with moderate social beliefs.


You're clearly self-deluded.

Okay, Bobsprit.

Not really a problem though, except that you're so aggressively vocal
about what you think others believe.

As are you. I don't deny that I am. You, OTOH, seem to think yourself
befitting of a halo and wings. That is either arrogance to the Nth degree,
or self-delusion that is hazardous to your ability as a debater.


I don't have a problem with any citizen voting as he thinks best. That's
what democracy is about. I *do* have a problem with people who insist that
a 51% majority is an entitlement to install a dictatorial plutocracy with
fascist tendencies (this is not an insult, just going by the dictionary
definition of those words... look it up).

The only folks I'm aware of who insist on that were the framers of the
Constitution. Whomever wins, wins. That's the law. And the winner can
pretty much do whatever he pleases, whether it pleases the populace or not.
Our system isn't perfect by a long shot. But as long as you brought the
point up--would you believe it okay to install a dictatorial plutocracy with
fascist tendencies if the candidate had won 60% or even 80% of the popular
vote? I don't.

I *do* have a problem with crooked voting machines, and gerrymandering,
and lots of other electoral tricks... and so should every other citizen!

Agreed, but obviously not everyone does.


I don't have a problem with free speech. But it's a big problem when a lot
of people... especially people who are backed by big money... make a habit
of shouting "FIRE" in crowded theaters.

Money is the lube that makes Washington work for individuals or groups.
Always has been, always will be. I don't like it--you don't like it--most
sensible citizens don't like it. But we'd all better get used to it *OR*
endeavor to find another system, because this is the one we've got.


Rush Limbaugh once said "Freedom of speech means I can demand that anybody
who disagrees with me to shut the hell up." Kinda funny as a semi-clever
play on words, but as a political principal, it stinks.

He thought so, too. That's why he said it. When taken out of context, it
sounds ugly. He was using it as a negative example, just as you did here.
I was listening to that program. If you had, you'd have realized that he
was playing devil's advocate. Another example: Rush once said, while
making a point, that only the poor should be taxed. His reasoning was that
they take from the government, but contribute little or nothing in terms of
revenue. Of course he wasn't advocating taxing only the poor, or taxing
them at all (he said so in so many words), but every left-wing pundit in the
country was saying the next day that "Rush Limbaugh is for taxing only the
poor." I still hear that from liberals to this day.


Max