which is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like Rush
Limbaugh.


Maxprop wrote:
Is Rush preaching hatred any more than Michael Moore, Al Franken, George
Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belefonte, and myriad others?? You seem to
be wearing some rather one-sided blinders these days.


Not at all.

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).

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

For example, which liberal Senator called for the
assassination of a sitting President of the opposite party?

Trick question: none, nor would it be tolerated (it
shouldn't be tolerated from either party IMHO). However NC's
own Jesse Helms on two seperate occasions stated publicly
(once in a speech to a military crowd) that any real patriot
would pick up his gun and shoot Clinton, and be proud of it.
I don't seem to recall the "liberal biased media" making
much of it at the time.

In short, you're a product of your environment... steeped in
a lot of vigorous but senseless & fact-free screeching &
whining about how everything bad is the liberals fault. So
of course, anything that *isn't* a lot of right-wing
blather seems liberal to you. But it's still a (relatively)
free country, you listen to all that crap because you like
it. And it shows.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
which is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like Rush
Limbaugh.


Maxprop wrote:
Is Rush preaching hatred any more than Michael Moore, Al Franken, George
Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belefonte, and myriad others?? You seem
to be wearing some rather one-sided blinders these days.


Not at all.

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).

It's obvious you've never listened to him. I've never heard him say that
liberals should be locked up, at least not unless in jest. But it's not a
bad idea. :-)

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? I've never heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Snow, or any
of the other conservative pundits advocating violence. If you believe that
there's no hate speech emanting from the left, you're delusional.

For example, which liberal Senator called for the assassination of a
sitting President of the opposite party?

You tell me.


Trick question: none, nor would it be tolerated (it shouldn't be tolerated
from either party IMHO). However NC's own Jesse Helms on two seperate
occasions stated publicly (once in a speech to a military crowd) that any
real patriot would pick up his gun and shoot Clinton, and be proud of it.
I don't seem to recall the "liberal biased media" making much of it at the
time.

I don't recall that at all, but it doesn't surprise me. 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.

In short, you're a product of your environment... steeped in a lot of
vigorous but senseless & fact-free screeching & whining about how
everything bad is the liberals fault.

Is that so? I guess it was all those radical left-wing years that made me
what I am. But while you've brought up the subject, yes, I believe a lot of
what's bad about our society can be directly attributed to
liberal/progressive causes and actions. 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. That's just one example. I'm
sure you don't care to hear more. However I also believe that a lot of what
is wrong with our society can also be attributed to ultra-right wing causes
and agendas as well. The religious right is dictatorial and unforgiving,
and I'm disappointed that the GOP hasn't distanced itself from them. Unlike
you, I can see both sides of the issue.

So of course, anything that *isn't* a lot of right-wing blather seems
liberal to you. But it's still a (relatively) free country, you listen to
all that crap because you like it. And it shows.

Unlike you, I listen to both sides and make up my mind. That I've chosen to
favor some conservative and right-of-center fiscal positions over those on
the left does not automatically make me wrong, despite your viewpoint.

I believe we are overtaxed and our government overspends. I'm opposed to
increasing income taxes, which the democrats will surely do if they capture
the White House and both houses of Congress. I'm in favor of fiscal
responsibility on the part of our leaders, which is why I detest the current
administration. 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. I'd like to see government shrunk dramatically, with some
bureaus done away with entirely, or at least reduced dramatically. I don't
care if gays want to get married--it shouldn't be a political issue--and I
support a woman's rights to decide w/r/t pregnancy, but pray the decision is
life. I support a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. I'm
strongly in favor of cleaner air, water; and I oppose the destruction of
federal natural lands. I think current and past administrations have done a
dismal job with the environment and our federal lands. I believe in the
right for individuals to burn the American flag in protest as a freedom of
expression. And I'm opposed to *not* taking the necessary measures to
insure the security our borders and stop or severely limit illegal
immigration. It's my impression that our government is bloated,
inefficient, far too large, and wasteful. I'm clearly a libertarian with
moderate social beliefs.

If those beliefs brand me a right-wing extremist in your viewpoint, you
could only be situated on the extreme far left yourself.

Max

I think you're talking about a work of fiction.

BTW...
Kenneth Starr says he never should have led the investigation that resulted
in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

The former independent counsel, now dean of the Pepperdine University law
school, says "the most fundamental thing that could have been done
differently" was for somebody else to have investigated Clinton's statements
under oath denying he had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Starr said his role in a years long investigation of Clinton should have
focused instead on Clinton's role in the failed Arkansas land deal known as
Whitewater.


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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
which is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like Rush
Limbaugh.


Maxprop wrote:
Is Rush preaching hatred any more than Michael Moore, Al Franken, George
Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belefonte, and myriad others?? You seem
to be wearing some rather one-sided blinders these days.


Not at all.

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).

It's obvious you've never listened to him. I've never heard him say that
liberals should be locked up, at least not unless in jest. But it's not a
bad idea. :-)

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? I've never heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Snow, or any
of the other conservative pundits advocating violence. If you believe
that there's no hate speech emanting from the left, you're delusional.

For example, which liberal Senator called for the assassination of a
sitting President of the opposite party?

You tell me.


Trick question: none, nor would it be tolerated (it shouldn't be
tolerated from either party IMHO). However NC's own Jesse Helms on two
seperate occasions stated publicly (once in a speech to a military crowd)
that any real patriot would pick up his gun and shoot Clinton, and be
proud of it. I don't seem to recall the "liberal biased media" making
much of it at the time.

I don't recall that at all, but it doesn't surprise me. 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.

In short, you're a product of your environment... steeped in a lot of
vigorous but senseless & fact-free screeching & whining about how
everything bad is the liberals fault.

Is that so? I guess it was all those radical left-wing years that made me
what I am. But while you've brought up the subject, yes, I believe a lot
of what's bad about our society can be directly attributed to
liberal/progressive causes and actions. 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. That's just one example. I'm
sure you don't care to hear more. However I also believe that a lot of
what is wrong with our society can also be attributed to ultra-right wing
causes and agendas as well. The religious right is dictatorial and
unforgiving, and I'm disappointed that the GOP hasn't distanced itself
from them. Unlike you, I can see both sides of the issue.

So of course, anything that *isn't* a lot of right-wing blather seems
liberal to you. But it's still a (relatively) free country, you listen to
all that crap because you like it. And it shows.

Unlike you, I listen to both sides and make up my mind. That I've chosen
to favor some conservative and right-of-center fiscal positions over those
on the left does not automatically make me wrong, despite your viewpoint.

I believe we are overtaxed and our government overspends. I'm opposed to
increasing income taxes, which the democrats will surely do if they
capture the White House and both houses of Congress. I'm in favor of
fiscal responsibility on the part of our leaders, which is why I detest
the current administration. 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. I'd like to see government shrunk
dramatically, with some bureaus done away with entirely, or at least
reduced dramatically. I don't care if gays want to get married--it
shouldn't be a political issue--and I support a woman's rights to decide
w/r/t pregnancy, but pray the decision is life. I support a law-abiding
citizen's right to keep and bear arms. I'm strongly in favor of cleaner
air, water; and I oppose the destruction of federal natural lands. I
think current and past administrations have done a dismal job with the
environment and our federal lands. I believe in the right for individuals
to burn the American flag in protest as a freedom of expression. And I'm
opposed to *not* taking the necessary measures to insure the security our
borders and stop or severely limit illegal immigration. It's my
impression that our government is bloated, inefficient, far too large,
and wasteful. I'm clearly a libertarian with moderate social beliefs.

If those beliefs brand me a right-wing extremist in your viewpoint, you
could only be situated on the extreme far left yourself.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think you're talking about a work of fiction.

Wrong again, Jon. I was watching when it was said on one of the late night
talk show--can't recall if it was Leno or Letterman, but that's what he
said. The other detail I'm not sure of was whether it was Alec Baldwin or
Charles Grodin.

BTW...
Kenneth Starr says he never should have led the investigation that
resulted in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

I agree with him, if that's what he said. It was a witch hunt, costing
millions, accomplishing nothing.

The former independent counsel, now dean of the Pepperdine University law
school, says "the most fundamental thing that could have been done
differently" was for somebody else to have investigated Clinton's
statements under oath denying he had an affair with White House intern
Monica Lewinsky.

Starr said his role in a years long investigation of Clinton should have
focused instead on Clinton's role in the failed Arkansas land deal known
as Whitewater.

Waaaaaaaaay too much money and wasted time is being spent on partisan
political witch hunts and attacks in Washington these days. Our federal
legislators aren't exactly doing what we sent them there to do. Then again,
when they do nothing at all, we seem to reap the greatest benefits. g

As for vitriol and anger coming from both extremes, I ask only that you take
a hard, objective (yeah, like that's gonna happen g) look at *both*
fringes. If you do you'll see the hate-speech and rancor emanating equally
from both poles. There are no rights and wrongs in this, only varying
degrees of stupidity.

Max

And this is important because it was an actor who's name you can
remember???? More important than when Cheney said, "Go f*ck yourself" to a
Senator on the floor of the Senate?

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

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think you're talking about a work of fiction.

Wrong again, Jon. I was watching when it was said on one of the late
night talk show--can't recall if it was Leno or Letterman, but that's what
he said. The other detail I'm not sure of was whether it was Alec Baldwin
or Charles Grodin.

BTW...
Kenneth Starr says he never should have led the investigation that
resulted in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

I agree with him, if that's what he said. It was a witch hunt, costing
millions, accomplishing nothing.

The former independent counsel, now dean of the Pepperdine University law
school, says "the most fundamental thing that could have been done
differently" was for somebody else to have investigated Clinton's
statements under oath denying he had an affair with White House intern
Monica Lewinsky.

Starr said his role in a years long investigation of Clinton should have
focused instead on Clinton's role in the failed Arkansas land deal known
as Whitewater.

Waaaaaaaaay too much money and wasted time is being spent on partisan
political witch hunts and attacks in Washington these days. Our federal
legislators aren't exactly doing what we sent them there to do. Then
again, when they do nothing at all, we seem to reap the greatest benefits.
g

As for vitriol and anger coming from both extremes, I ask only that you
take a hard, objective (yeah, like that's gonna happen g) look at *both*
fringes. If you do you'll see the hate-speech and rancor emanating
equally from both poles. There are no rights and wrongs in this, only
varying degrees of stupidity.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And this is important because it was an actor who's name you can
remember???? More important than when Cheney said, "Go f*ck yourself" to a
Senator on the floor of the Senate?

Yes it was, especially in terms of coverage and the number of viewers
reached. Baldwin was on national TV during a relatively heavy viewing hour.
Unless you were watching CSPAN when Cheney made his ugly remark, you didn't
see it. I learned about it here, from you, incidentally.

Within the last year Leno asked people in the streets if they knew whom the
Vice President was. Many didn't. He asked them if they knew who Brad Pitt
was, and they all did.

Max

Funny, that I never heard it. And, I'm a left winger.

Who is Brad Pitt?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And this is important because it was an actor who's name you can
remember???? More important than when Cheney said, "Go f*ck yourself" to
a Senator on the floor of the Senate?

Yes it was, especially in terms of coverage and the number of viewers
reached. Baldwin was on national TV during a relatively heavy viewing
hour. Unless you were watching CSPAN when Cheney made his ugly remark, you
didn't see it. I learned about it here, from you, incidentally.

Within the last year Leno asked people in the streets if they knew whom
the Vice President was. Many didn't. He asked them if they knew who Brad
Pitt was, and they all did.

Max

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.




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?


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

Well then, you've never listened.

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

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

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




.... 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.



...... 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.



.... That's just one example. I'm
sure you don't care to hear more.

?? Go ahead, I'm not in a hurry.




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.




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.



.... 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 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

.... 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


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

Who isn't?
The question is, are you in favor of environmental
regulations that are functional and actively enforced.


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


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

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

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.

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.

Doug King

"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

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