DSK wrote:
.... Several of my
co-workers are Rush Limbaugh fans and play his show much of the day. I
hear several hours of his whining & lying every week.



felton wrote:
My condolences.

Oh, it's not as bad as some of the music I'm forced to endure. Actually
Rush can be kind of funny once in a while. But he whines a lot... I
think of him as the Britney Spears of choice for fat angry underemployed
white men.

... If you get desperate, you might try large numbers of
OxyContin, Rush's drug of choice. They are said to kill pain and cause
deafness

Actually I have some sympathy for his drug problem, prescription
painkillers can run away with you. That doesn't excuse his blatant
self-serving hypocrisy though.

Rush and his ilk have almost destroyed conservative politics in this
country. They have replaced conservative ideals with an endless parade
of illogic and wishful thinking, and replaced actual campaigning with
character assassination. Their popularity proves Barnum's Law: "It is
impossible to underestimate the stupidity and bad taste of the average
American."

Thankfully, it looks like the peak of Angry Dumb White Male Power might
have passed. Maybe not, I thought it had gone with Newt Gengrich...

DSK

Scout wrote:
Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with, "An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd need to
see something verifiable.

Oh, it's easily verifiable. It's the movie "Stand and Deliver," the name
of the teacher is the same as the first name of the actor.

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

DSK

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

This from the guy who has yet to post anything other than innuendo and
conjecture. What a laugh.

My wife and every teacher she knows dislikes the 'no child left behind'
policy. It won't work.

Scotty

"Scout" wrote in message
...
I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing
something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second
career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He
needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.
I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational plan
has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street, and
that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids. Unless you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.
I'm wondering when Bush will pass the "no child left out of the war" act.
Scout



"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

The economy that began falling with the tech collapse a few years
ago, began in Britian when they auctioned off frequency spectrum to
the highest telecom bidders, instead of the best qualified companies.
The
result was that government gained $36 billion instead of the expected
$9 billion. Nations around the world got greedy and did the same thing.

The companys that got the frequency specturm stood likely to make
billions, but not right away. First they had to pay for it, and they
didn't
have the money.

To finance all that, telecom corporations faked growth figures and
bankers
financed them when they shouldn't. When growth figures were not met,
Nokia and other cell makers crashed followed by telecom stocks, then
the whole tech sector, then the entire market.

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

Shame on you for blaming Bush, who has integrity and morals,
things unknown in the Democratic {sell-out} Party.

The Democrats never look at the long picture, their policy is
appeasement, like England's Chamberlin in WWII--that never works.
It takes toughness and moral intergirty to look after the common
good, not personal greedy so prevalent in the Democratic Party.

Let's vote for the greediest in the Democratic Party.

The nominations are; Hilllary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson,
and John Kerry.

Jonathan Ganz wrote
I think the worst offender is someone who takes away your job.
I'd gladly give up some cash to have the job market actually
be stable or growing (not talking about burger flippers). Talk
to Bu****. He's taken away millions of jobs. Fortunately, despite
him, they're starting to come back.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Comments interspersed...

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than he's
made.

Are you trying to say that this is a good or bad thing?

Works for me. Now if we could just get the other 99 senators to
"miss"
votes.


During a Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco Monday, Sen.
Hillary
Rodham Clinton told the audience. "We're going to take things
away
from you on behalf of the common good."

Like illegal drugs? Like WMDs? Like assault rifles? Pretty easy to
take
things out of context isn't it....

Like money. More and more of our money.

Max

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

Thankfully, it looks like the peak of Angry Dumb White Male Power
might have passed. Maybe not, I thought it had gone with Newt
Gengrich...

DSK

Here's a study from 1996 on who listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh listeners
are wealthier and better educated than the average American, not less.

--------------------------------

Call-In Political Talk Radio: Background, Content, Audiences,
Portrayal in Mainstream Media

A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of
the University of Pennsylvania under the direction of
Joseph N. Cappella, Joseph Turow and Kathleen Hall
Jamieson and funded by The Ford Foundation and the
Carnegie Corporation of New York

7 August 1996

THE ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

[snip]

Table 2. Four Political Talk Radio (PTR) Groups

Demographics by Percentage -- Political Talk Radio (PTR) Listeners

Demographic Non- Limbaugh Conservative Lib/Mod.
Listener Listener Listener Listener

Male 47.2 61 54 54.8
Female 52.8 39 46 45.2

Age 18-29 22.1 18.8 16.9 14.9
Age 30-49 44.4 43.0 49.3 53.6
Age 50-64 19.1 21.3 19.1 16.7
Age 65+ 14.4 16.9 14.7 14.9

high school 10.0 03.3 03.6 06.8
HS graduate 35.1 31.3 21.6 26.7
Some college 26.7 30.8 34.5 20.6
College grad 28.2 34.6 40.3 45.9

Income $20 K 25.7 14.3 12.9 18.7
Income $20-30 K 20.5 21.9 12.1 19.0
Income $30-50 K 26.0 24.5 30.6 23.0
Income $50 K 27.8 39.3 44.4 39.3

White 77.5 89.2 83.5 79.2
Non-White 22.5 10.8 16.5 20.8

Conservative 32.4 70.0 47.8 19.5
Moderate 44.2 21.4 34.1 51.1
Liberal 23.3 08.6 18.1 29.4
Republican 26.3 61.4 44.8 17.8
Independent 38.1 24.8 29.1 39.0
Democrat 35.6 13.8 26.1 43.1


Political Knowledge and Participation

2. Regular political talk radio listeners are more likely than
non-listeners to consume all types of news media (excepting tv
news), to be more knowledgeable about politics and social issues,
and to be involved in political activities. This is true regardless
of the ideology of the hosts of the programs to which they listen.
In other words, Limbaugh’s audience is no more or less knowledgeable
or active than the audience for moderate/liberal or conservative
talk radio. However listeners to Conservative talk radio are more
likely to vote than are listeners to Limbaugh or Liberal/Moderate
political talk radio.

KNOWLEDGE

Survey respondents were asked a variety of questions about their
knowledge of political and social issues. They were asked about how
much they felt they knew about various topics in the news (e.g."How
much do you feel you know about the debate in Washington about the
budget?"). They were also asked factual questions about civics (e.g.
the percentage of the House and Senate required to override a
presidential veto), general information (e.g., the percentage of
welfare mothers receiving benefits for more than 3 years), and
current information in the news (e.g. the number of troops in Bosnia
who are members of the U.S. armed forces).

Two conclusions obtain. First, regular listeners of PTR have higher
levels of knowledge and correctly think they have higher levels of
knowledge than non-listeners. Second, regular listeners of Rush
Limbaugh, Conservative, and Liberal/Moderate PTR are no different
from one another in actual or reported knowledge. This is true of
civics knowledge, general factual knowledge about social and
political issues, and factual knowledge about things in the news.
The claims are based on knowledge and felt knowledge scores after
they are corrected for a variety of controls including education,
sex, gender, age, main stream media exposure, and ideology.

The audience of PTR may bring some special characteristics with it
to the medium which we are unable to measure. Or the content of PTR
may add to or facilitate the audience’s store of knowledge. What is
clear is that for the questions we used, no one audience of PTR --
Limbaugh’s or others -- is different in social or political
knowledge, from the other listeners.

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

In previous surveys, PTR listeners have been shown to have higher
levels of political participation than others. Some hosts may
encourage their listeners to oppose or support specific issues. For
example, our content analysis of Limbaugh’s show suggested that a
substantial proportion of his time is spent on personal and
political efficacy.

Respondents were asked about their participation in political
affairs including contacting public officials, contributing money,
contacting newspapers or TV stations, and so on. Other forms of
participation include a general question on following what’s going
on in public affairs and government and reported voting frequency.

Regular listeners of PTR report higher levels of political
participation, closer following of politics and government, and
higher levels of voting than those who do not listen regularly.
These differences remain after a variety of controls for
demographic, party and ideological differences, and exposure to
other media. With one exception, which we will note in a moment,
those who listen regularly to Rush Limbaugh, Conservative, and
Liberal/Moderate PTR do not differ from one another in
participation, or the extent they follow "what’s going on in
government and public affairs."

The same findings (under the same set of controls) obtain on
measures of political efficacy ("people like me don’t have any say
...") and political meaninglessness ("there aren’t any important
differences between Republicans and Democrats ..."). Regular
listeners are higher in efficacy and lower in meaninglessness than
non-regular listeners (even after controls) indicating that they
believe that politics is important and they can influence government
and politicians. No differences were found among the three regular
listener groups.

One exception to this pattern which is not readily explainable is
that listeners to Conservative PTR report higher levels of voting
than any other group and this effect remains even after differences
due to audience characteristics and media exposure are removed.
Since there are no other differences in political participation,
knowledge, media use, or other obvious factors which would explain
these differences, we have an anomaly without an explanation.

As with knowledge questions, those who are regular listeners of PTR
have elevated levels of political involvement either because PTR
activates their involvement or because of some unknown
characteristics the audience brings with it to PTR. What can be said
is that the consumers of PTR are political activists.

Hey idiot... hate to tell you but it was the best economy in 30 years.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:13:35 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there
was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

And golly gee, that was the best economy in 84 years!



Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

I guess you don't remember the Reagan years.


The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond
Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Agreed. The demoncrats got nothing. They got nothing on the economy.
They got nothing on health care. They got nothing on Iraq.

I heard on the radio that if Edwards becomes V.P. he plans to sue Iraq
to recover the cost of the war.


(I better not say anything bad about Edwards, he'll sue me.)





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

You're right. It doesn't. One reason it doesn't is that it's not been
funded. It was a great idea, but without actually allocating the
funds, it's less than worthless.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
My wife and every teacher she knows dislikes the 'no child left behind'
policy. It won't work.

Scotty

"Scout" wrote in message
...
I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing
something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second
career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He
needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.
I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational plan
has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of
the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street, and
that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids. Unless
you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.
I'm wondering when Bush will pass the "no child left out of the war"
act.
Scout



"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

The economy that began falling with the tech collapse a few years
ago, began in Britian when they auctioned off frequency spectrum to
the highest telecom bidders, instead of the best qualified companies.
The
result was that government gained $36 billion instead of the expected
$9 billion. Nations around the world got greedy and did the same
thing.

The companys that got the frequency specturm stood likely to make
billions, but not right away. First they had to pay for it, and they
didn't
have the money.

To finance all that, telecom corporations faked growth figures and
bankers
financed them when they shouldn't. When growth figures were not met,
Nokia and other cell makers crashed followed by telecom stocks, then
the whole tech sector, then the entire market.

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the
clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

Shame on you for blaming Bush, who has integrity and morals,
things unknown in the Democratic {sell-out} Party.

The Democrats never look at the long picture, their policy is
appeasement, like England's Chamberlin in WWII--that never works.
It takes toughness and moral intergirty to look after the common
good, not personal greedy so prevalent in the Democratic Party.

Let's vote for the greediest in the Democratic Party.

The nominations are; Hilllary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson,
and John Kerry.

Jonathan Ganz wrote
I think the worst offender is someone who takes away your job.
I'd gladly give up some cash to have the job market actually
be stable or growing (not talking about burger flippers). Talk
to Bu****. He's taken away millions of jobs. Fortunately, despite
him, they're starting to come back.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Comments interspersed...

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than he's
made.

Are you trying to say that this is a good or bad thing?

Works for me. Now if we could just get the other 99 senators to
"miss"
votes.


During a Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco Monday, Sen.
Hillary
Rodham Clinton told the audience. "We're going to take things
away
from you on behalf of the common good."

Like illegal drugs? Like WMDs? Like assault rifles? Pretty easy
to
take
things out of context isn't it....

Like money. More and more of our money.

Max

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

Bobspirt wrote:
This from the guy who has yet to post anything other than innuendo and
conjecture. What a laugh.

Always glad to help.

Did you think the links I posted about Halliburton's overcharges were
"innuendo"? Maybe my statements about President Reagan failing to
reform the welfare system were "conjecture"?

DSK

But he wasn't fired, he quit. He connected with the kids, but not the
adults, and not just the teachers. The early / late complaint came from the
janitor, not sour-grapes teachers.
Scout


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Scout wrote:
Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with,
"An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd need
to
see something verifiable.

Oh, it's easily verifiable. It's the movie "Stand and Deliver," the name
of the teacher is the same as the first name of the actor.

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

DSK

oops, my bad. Max did say "quit"

"Scout" wrote in message
...
But he wasn't fired, he quit. He connected with the kids, but not the
adults, and not just the teachers. The early / late complaint came from
the
janitor, not sour-grapes teachers.
Scout


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Scout wrote:
Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with,
"An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd
need
to
see something verifiable.

Oh, it's easily verifiable. It's the movie "Stand and Deliver," the name
of the teacher is the same as the first name of the actor.

It's nice to see Maxprop trying to back up his statements with at least
some form of near-fact.

DSK