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.


Maxprop wrote:
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.

Well, there you go again. That's the problem innit?
Maxprop's imagination over here, and way way way over there
in the distance is reality.


... Then again, if you
actually do listen to him, you're doing so from a decidely left-wing
perspective.


???

Listening to the words that the man speaks is "left-wing"?


.... right-wingers think he's
truthful.

Considering that he says himself that his fans are morons
and that he makes stuff up on the spot, that's a pretty
stupid thing to think.



Your example of an aging, redneck senator is hardly any different. Most
people take Alec Baldwin more seriously than Jesse Helms.

When was Alec Baldwing the chairman of several Senate
committees?


... 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.


Wrong again. Due to your bias, you accept the statements
from the right-wing that their hate speech is only "fair and
balanced" by all the hate speech from the left. I bet you
even use the phrase "liberal biased media."





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??


In other words, now you're admitting that your statement
above is false...

1- There is just as much hate speech from the left as from
the right, so therefor the right's hate speech is OK and the
left's is terrible (even though two wrongs don't make a right).

2-There is not as much hate speech from the left because
it's not as profitable (maybe because it's not hateful enough).

Which is it?

This is one of the things I love about you right-wing nut
cases. You can't put together three sentences without
blatantly contradicting yourselves. It just goes to show
that P.T. Barnum was not only correct, he should have gone
into politics.




Maxprop wrote:
...... 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.

And they still do.

Years ago, J.Edgar Hoover and Nixon & their ilk were all
loudly declaring the ACLU to be a bunch of libby-rull
traitor fags.

In other words, the ACLU hasn't changed. Maybe you have.




.... Now they define liberalism and the
left-wing agenda. They are transparently inconsistent in their defense of
"civil liberties."


Is that a quote from Joe McCarthy?




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.

??

I guess the rich don't get more benefits from society?


.... Why is it so difficult to accept
that those who pay the most should reap the largest benefit of tax cuts?

Why is it so difficult to accept that those who get the most
benefit should pay the largest share?


Could it be that you favor the concept of "redistribution of wealth?"

Could it be that you don't grasp that *all* gov't is
redistributing wealth? It seems inherent in the ideas that
you've said you believe in, that gov't cannot create wealth
and should be minimized etc etc.

The question, how should wealth be distributed in the first
place? Obviously to those with the political power to sieze
& hold it.



Then why did you campaign for them so frantically?


I didn't campaign for them at all. I simply did not like Kerry.

In other words, you weren't in favor of Bush/Cheney, you
were against Kerry.

Seems to me that a common accusation was that many Kerry
voters were not really "for" Kerry but against Bush. Hmmm.




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


Indeed, if they are truly *functional.*

In other words, you're infavor of laws that keep the other
guy from polluting.




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

??

If you believe this, then you need to go back and re-take
6th grade civics.



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.

???

Then why does he do it daily, and stick to it as an
operating principle of his "entertainment?"

DSK