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

Thanks for posting this, but frankly I don't believe it. Limbaugh caters
to the lowest common denominator and spews so much blatant falsehood
(like the other day when he was whining about Alan Greenspan's record
with the Fed) that you'd have to be a retard, with a very short memory,
to believe half what he says.

At one point some years ago, Limbaugh described himself as 'an
entertainer, not a journalist' and said that he just made stuff up
because it was easier than doing research. He also said that most of his
audience were "morons"... that was his word, not mine. Since then I
guess he has made so much money that he guards his off-show comments
more carefully

...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.

I can explain it easily. It is due the average Limbaugh listener's
pathologic rage against the Clintons. He pushes this button almost
daily. His listeners get all stoked with righteous indignation, then
they get out there and vote, dammit!

DSK

That's really my point. It looks good on paper, but doesn't address the real
problems.
Scout

"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

Some school districts (not the unions) are telling the feds to shove their
money. They'd rather do without then play that game. Reading (PA) SD is
suing the state over what it sees as inequities in the law.
Scout
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0211/p01s02-ussc.html

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
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

Scout wrote:
That's really my point. It looks good on paper, but doesn't address the real
problems.

It's also an "unfunded mandate" which is one of the things that
conservatives dislike intensely...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
An Metet wrote:
Here's a study from 1996 on who listens to Limbaugh. Limbaugh listeners
are wealthier and better educated than the average American, not less.

Thanks for posting this, but frankly I don't believe it......

I believe it was true back in 1966 when the White House was supplying him
with plenty of punch lines, but not now that Clintoon and his crowd of
comedians have been replaced by The Shrub and friends. What surprises me is
that no left-wing equivalent of Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub
certainly provides lots of material.

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

What surprises me is that no left-wing equivalent of
Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub certainly provides lots of
material.

Heart-string-pulling arguments (pleas to pure emotion) work better on
television, or cinema. Dry logical debate works best in print. But the
thing that works best on radio is logic, fueled by passionate belief.
That's the essence of conservative talk radio.

The problem with the left is that they can't combine their passion with
their logic. The things they believe most passionately are illogical.

It seems, leftwing arguments can't work without all the pretty (or
disgusting) images to distract the unwashed. Leftist dogma is conveyed
best in things like fast-cut Michael Moore movies.

Most of the conservative talk hosts (those that take callers) put their
critical callers up first. They like to debate and win their points.
It's fun and it makes for good radio. None of the lame liberal talk
shows that I've heard do that. They just preach to the choir. Boring.

What surprises me is that no left-wing equivalent of
Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub certainly provides lots of
material.

Heart-string-pulling arguments (pleas to pure emotion) work better on
television, or cinema. Dry logical debate works best in print. But the
thing that works best on radio is logic, fueled by passionate belief.
That's the essence of conservative talk radio.

Also, the left already own print media and television. Radio is not an
"outlet" for liberals because their viewpoint is already prevalent across most
media.

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:45:27 -0400, An Metet
wrote:

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

What surprises me is that no left-wing equivalent of
Limbaugh has become popular cuz the Shrub certainly provides lots of
material.

Heart-string-pulling arguments (pleas to pure emotion) work better on
television, or cinema. Dry logical debate works best in print. But the
thing that works best on radio is logic, fueled by passionate belief.
That's the essence of conservative talk radio.

The problem with the left is that they can't combine their passion with
their logic. The things they believe most passionately are illogical.

It seems, leftwing arguments can't work without all the pretty (or
disgusting) images to distract the unwashed. Leftist dogma is conveyed
best in things like fast-cut Michael Moore movies.

Most of the conservative talk hosts (those that take callers) put their
critical callers up first. They like to debate and win their points.
It's fun and it makes for good radio. None of the lame liberal talk
shows that I've heard do that. They just preach to the choir. Boring.

Oh, please. "Debate", "critical callers". Rush Limbaugh and his
imitators are about as much like an open debate as professional
wrestling is a competitive sport. They spend their entire program
trying to demonize the "other side" with fabrications and
exaggerations. They control the "debate" with screeners and kill
buttons. Frankly, these programs appeal to people's baser instincts
in the same manner as the Jerry Springer Show. It is certainly not
for civil discourse, information or balanced debates. It is
propaganda pure and simple and is designed to reinforce the biases of
the weak minded. It is more akin to a Klan rally than to Meet the
Press.

You should really get off your intellectual high horse before you take
a nasty fall.

"Scout" wrote in message

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. It just doesn't ring true, and sounds like a
lawyer tying to make a case for his client (i.e., he needs a villain). I
am
interested however, and looking for the story myself; so far no luck. It
should be a fairly easy story to find. If you see the story, preferably
with
two sides, please post it.

Will do. I'm still searching for it as well.

Several year's ago I was Pennsylvania's New Teacher of the Year. Part of
the
reason for that was that I was at school an hour before and at least an
hour
afterschool for kids who needed extra help. The other teachers had no
problems with this, and I can't understand why any would, unless there is
more to this story than the radio lawyer has let on. Please keep me posted
if you hear more.
Scout

My general mistrust of attorneys tends to lead me to be skeptical as well,
but the show's host (it was a WLS--Chicago--local show) claimed to have read
the same story, lending some credence. If I can find anything, I'll post it
here under "Teacher Story."

Max

"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.

Why thanks, Doug. In your arrogant and derogatory way, you've paid me a
backhanded compliment.

Max