NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/misc/headline/4928

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-21 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky misc.headlines:4928 talk.politics.misc:34926 talk.politics.mideast:16922 soc.culture.arabic:2799 alt.conspiracy:9259 alt.censorship:6070 soc.rights.human:2599 alt.rush-limbaugh:2912 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3664
Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!s.psych.uiuc.edu!tbuckley
From: [e-mail] (Tim Buckley)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.arabic,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship,soc.rights.human,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NON-AGENDA
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:28:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BrqwCC.2qp
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Lines: 59


>>>Larry King (also a talk-show host) as well as a number of other talk
>>>show hosts have publicly questioned Rush Limbaugh's feelings towards
>>>blacks, women and all minorities.
>
>>>He is not much more than a hate monger hiding behind a smoke-screen
>>>which he calls patriotism.  This is not unusual (historically).
>>
>>I publicly question your ability to back this statement up with some
>>facts.
>
>Well, i have never heard Rush on the subject of race. The only time I was
>unfortunate enough to hear his program, though, he spoke on censorship. His
>rant was basically to the effect of "its illegal to pray at a graduation,
>I mean prayer is illegal, but its ok to sing songs about killing cops." He
>continued this rant for several minutes before I got bored and changed the
>station.
>
>Nice logic, Rush. Of course prayer is not illegal, it just cant be government
>funded. Im sure that few jurisdictions would allow "Cop Killer" to be sung
>at their graduation ceremonies either. Such ridiculous, inflammatory non-
>logic places rush one level below Paul Harvey in my book.
>
>

Look I hate to be mean here but your post said that Rush was "nothing
more than a hate monger".  You were then asked to provide evidence to
this point.  You respond with 1) an admission that you heard the show
only once for a few minutes, and 2) that you find Rush's frustration
with allowing Cop Killer aired and sold but prayer at a graduation (that
had been going on for years and was accepted by 99% of the community)
was not allowed.

You are right Rush's linking of the two is not as tight as one would
like to see in a good argument but when the general welfare is
considered one has to question how our values got so screwed up.  A
reasonable thought although not the BEST argument.

You on the other hand never even attempted to provide the evidence that
was needed to support your claim that Rush is a hate monger.  How does
questioning the way our censorship laws are applied have anything to do
with hate mongering?  Talk about specious arguments.  It is offensive to
accuse someone of something as heinous as hate mongering and provide such
inconsequential evidence to "support" your contention.  It is just as
offensive to accuse someone else of illogical argument and then make an
even worse (MUCH WORSE) argument in support of your position.  You
should be ashamed of yourself (no I'm not kidding).  I've listened to
Rush many times.  He is not always right (sometimes he SHOULD use the
other half of his brain) but I have never heard anything that could be
construed as hate mongering.  If you can't provide evidence to this
effect then do not make such obviously pitiful attempts to persuade us
with inconsequential "facts".  Take your vitriolic and illogical
argument to alt.stupidity or alt.pathetic.  You owe Rush and apology and
the readers of this newsgroup an apology for wasting our time refuting
your silly statements.

Have a nice day

Tim