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

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

Maxprop wrote:

... 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"?

Are you implying that your brain does not process anything you hear? Here's
a newsflash: how one perceives what he hears has everything to do with what
he believes has been said.

.... 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.

You've said this before. How about a reference. It sounds completely
illogical--his listener base would disappear overnight if he'd actually said
that, or worse if he says it repeatedly.

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?

When was Jesse Helms a world-famous movie personality, starring in many
top-rated movies, appearing on TV talk shows? Visibility is everything in
politics. Take William Jefferson (please!)--did you know who he was prior
to all the media attention?

... 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.

Heh, heh, not too fond of Fox News, are ya?

I bet you even use the phrase "liberal biased media."

Almost, but you're close.

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...

Are you willing to admit that the left-wing does not represent mainstream
American values, therefore failing to have enough appeal to sustain its talk
shows and channels?

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).

I've said repeatedly that I condemn both political poles. That would imply,
to any rational person, that I don't care for hate-speech no matter who is
talking. Why are you having so much trouble with that? It seems you simply
aren't happy unless I'm rabidly right-wing. Sorry to disappoint you.

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

The hate-speech comes from different venues, depending upon the politics.
Left-wing blogs and websites are far more numerous than their right-wing
equivalents. And right-wing talk shows (Rush, Mike Gallagher, Tony Snow
before he got his current job, and others outnumber the left-wing
varieties. And a lot of left-wing hate-speech emanates from the Hollywood
glitterazzi. In the final analysis, it's probably a wash.

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.

That's what I love about you, Doug. You simply can't debate an issue,
rather you have to attack the debater, which is tantamount to an admission
of failure. No surprises there.

This is boring and you're a jerk.

Ciao.

Max

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


Maxprop wrote:
Are you implying that your brain does not process anything you hear?

Not at all.

.... Here's
a newsflash: how one perceives what he hears has everything to do with what
he believes has been said.


I guess if you are so incredibly biased that you cannot hear
any communication, no matter how clear & simple, without
perceiving some bias, then you're probably right. But for
most people, that's not the case.

When you hear the words "The sky is blue" or "water runs
downhill" do you percieve those words to be liberal or
conservative?

How about "the insurgency is on it's last legs" or "censured
for conflict of interest" or "arrested for possession of
illegal narcotics" ... ???

Seems pretty clear to me, no slant one way or the other.
They are simple declaratives.



.... 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.


You've said this before. How about a reference. It sounds completely
illogical--his listener base would disappear overnight if he'd actually said
that, or worse if he says it repeatedly.

Well, he said it in the same interview in which he said
"Freedom of speech gives me the right to demand anybody that
disagrees with me must shut the hell up." If you heard that,
then you heard the other. Perhaps your right-bias listening
device filtered it out.

In any event, when a public figure has been arrested for
drugs multiple times, after nmaking public statements about
the despicableness of drug addicts, one suspects that
nothing could damage his credibility with those who are
biased towards believing him.



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?


When was Jesse Helms a world-famous movie personality, starring in many
top-rated movies, appearing on TV talk shows? Visibility is everything in
politics. Take William Jefferson (please!)--did you know who he was prior
to all the media attention?


AFAIK William Jefferson was on a 70s sitcom and is a
fictional character. I never heard of Alec Baldwin, so he
can't be all that famous.



Are you willing to admit that the left-wing does not represent mainstream
American values, therefore failing to have enough appeal to sustain its talk
shows and channels?


Are you willing to admit that you've made several
self-contradictory statements on the matter?


1- There is just as much hate speech from the left as from
the right

1a- so therefor the right's hate speech is OK and the left's
is terrible

1b-(even though two wrongs don't make a right).


I've said repeatedly that I condemn both political poles.

No, you haven't. You have only condemned hate speech from
the left.



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


The hate-speech comes from different venues, depending upon the politics.
Left-wing blogs and websites are far more numerous than their right-wing
equivalents.

Really? You mean, there aren't numerous right-wing blogs?

... And right-wing talk shows (Rush, Mike Gallagher, Tony Snow
before he got his current job, and others outnumber the left-wing
varieties. And a lot of left-wing hate-speech emanates from the Hollywood
glitterazzi. In the final analysis, it's probably a wash.


Except that the Bush/Cheney administration has used federal
departments budgets to produce pro-administration
infomercials and faked news releases. That alone accounts
for a couple hundred million worth of de-facto campaign
advertising.

In the final analysis, "it's a wash" is a highly biased
statement.



That's what I love about you, Doug. You simply can't debate an issue,
rather you have to attack the debater

In other words, you have no way of reconciling the *fact*
that you've made some illogical & false statements, and you
cannot seem to produce any actual evidence (other than you
own repeated assertions) that I'm biased.



This is boring and you're a jerk.


If I had in fact been calling you names ... and point out
how illogical and self-contradictory (therefor stupid) your
statement are is not really an attack... then 2 wrongs don't
make a right.

DSK

This is very non-politically correct...

The sky is blue should read the sky is non-white.
Water runs downhill should read water runs in the appropriate direction.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Listening to the words that the man speaks is "left-wing"?


Maxprop wrote:
Are you implying that your brain does not process anything you hear?

Not at all.

.... Here's a newsflash: how one perceives what he hears has everything
to do with what he believes has been said.


I guess if you are so incredibly biased that you cannot hear any
communication, no matter how clear & simple, without perceiving some bias,
then you're probably right. But for most people, that's not the case.

When you hear the words "The sky is blue" or "water runs downhill" do you
percieve those words to be liberal or conservative?

How about "the insurgency is on it's last legs" or "censured for conflict
of interest" or "arrested for possession of illegal narcotics" ... ???

Seems pretty clear to me, no slant one way or the other. They are simple
declaratives.



.... 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.


You've said this before. How about a reference. It sounds completely
illogical--his listener base would disappear overnight if he'd actually
said that, or worse if he says it repeatedly.

Well, he said it in the same interview in which he said "Freedom of speech
gives me the right to demand anybody that disagrees with me must shut the
hell up." If you heard that, then you heard the other. Perhaps your
right-bias listening device filtered it out.

In any event, when a public figure has been arrested for drugs multiple
times, after nmaking public statements about the despicableness of drug
addicts, one suspects that nothing could damage his credibility with those
who are biased towards believing him.



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?


When was Jesse Helms a world-famous movie personality, starring in many
top-rated movies, appearing on TV talk shows? Visibility is everything
in politics. Take William Jefferson (please!)--did you know who he was
prior to all the media attention?


AFAIK William Jefferson was on a 70s sitcom and is a fictional character.
I never heard of Alec Baldwin, so he can't be all that famous.



Are you willing to admit that the left-wing does not represent mainstream
American values, therefore failing to have enough appeal to sustain its
talk shows and channels?


Are you willing to admit that you've made several self-contradictory
statements on the matter?


1- There is just as much hate speech from the left as from the right

1a- so therefor the right's hate speech is OK and the left's is terrible

1b-(even though two wrongs don't make a right).


I've said repeatedly that I condemn both political poles.

No, you haven't. You have only condemned hate speech from the left.



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


The hate-speech comes from different venues, depending upon the politics.
Left-wing blogs and websites are far more numerous than their right-wing
equivalents.

Really? You mean, there aren't numerous right-wing blogs?

... And right-wing talk shows (Rush, Mike Gallagher, Tony Snow before he
got his current job, and others outnumber the left-wing varieties. And
a lot of left-wing hate-speech emanates from the Hollywood glitterazzi.
In the final analysis, it's probably a wash.


Except that the Bush/Cheney administration has used federal departments
budgets to produce pro-administration infomercials and faked news
releases. That alone accounts for a couple hundred million worth of
de-facto campaign advertising.

In the final analysis, "it's a wash" is a highly biased statement.



That's what I love about you, Doug. You simply can't debate an issue,
rather you have to attack the debater

In other words, you have no way of reconciling the *fact* that you've made
some illogical & false statements, and you cannot seem to produce any
actual evidence (other than you own repeated assertions) that I'm biased.



This is boring and you're a jerk.


If I had in fact been calling you names ... and point out how illogical
and self-contradictory (therefor stupid) your statement are is not really
an attack... then 2 wrongs don't make a right.

DSK