NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/8806

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 5.3 KB | 119 lines

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!bronze.ucs.indiana.edu!aaiken
From: [e-mail] (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Why Rush is a Jack Ass
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:54:19 GMT
Lines: 106

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bret Egan) writes:

>First of all he is farther right than Adolf Hitler.

    Nearly everyone is now.  Hitler was thoroughly anti-capitalist.  He
nationalized German industry, and exercised complete control over the market.
He championed group rights, claiming that the individual was too insignificant
an entity to merit legal recognition.  He murdered people without due process.
He committed genocide on a scale rivaled in this century only by Stalin.  In
other words, Hitler was the model Leftist - his Nationalist Socialist party
denounced Soviet Communism for few reasons other than the fact that it was
all that stood in the way of neo-Prussian imperialism.  The ancient Russian
fear of being enslaved to Prussians was awakened.  Thus the Bolsheviks fought
against the Nazi military threat.  The Bolsheviks and Nazis were bitter
enemies, but ideological brothers nevertheless.

    For an excellent treatment of this relationship, read F.A. Hayek's
_The Road to Serfdom_.


>Assuming television and the media are liberal institutions, why would he be
>caught dead surrounded by liberalism?

    It's fun to fight, especially for a lost cause.

>His audiance consists of old people who up till two weeks ago still had a voice
>in our government.  The same people who thought that the debt accumulated over
>the last twelve years was functional for our country, are gloating right now
>about the lower taxes they paid during Reagan/Bush.


    The lower taxes they paid under Reagan gave the government HIGHER
tax revenues.  Our debt is large, but it was caused by uncontrolled spending,
not by low taxes.  The increase in tax revenues was outpaced by the increase
in spending.  The danger posed by the public debt has been exaggerated.  The
debt now is about 57 per cent of GDP, but in 1946, the debt was 127 per cent
of GDP.  This debt was financed by short-term bonds, but still, it hampered
little the remarkable post-war boom.  This is not to say that the deficit
and debt are not serious problems, but we must realize that the eighties
boom was the result of supply-side, rather than Keynesian policy.  The fact
that Clinton advocates an Investment Tax Credit tells us that even his
Keynesian economic advisors cannot deny the success of some supply-side
principles.


>Rush denies that their is anything wrong with OUR environment.  That is not only
>being ultra conservative, but also being ignorent.  Why should Rush care about
>the quality of his drinking water or the air he breathes (living in NYC)?
>That argument holds true for our corporate execs.  They (their company) can pollute almost
>without any interference from the EPA, but when the environment goes to hell they
>can jet off to some foreign country to breath.  Al Gore will stop this "Look the
>other way" EPA enforcement of Pollution laws.

    First, I agree that Rush Limbaugh is sometimes ignorant regarding
environmental issues.  But I would like for you to substantiate your claim
that corporations "can pollute without any interference from the EPA."  This
is a patently false accusation.

>The hole in the ozone EXISTS!

    Maybe, but where, and why?  (The answer may not be simple, or obvious)
    I hope you aren't getting this from the same place where you got
    the idea that the EPA has been effectively abolished.

>Rush should know (or maybe he doesn't) that as a country WE elect our president,
>not Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals.  We stood behind
>Reagan/Bush as trickle down increased our Debt.  We should now stand behind Bill

    Did you stand behind Reagan?  Were you uncritical of him when he was
    President?


>Clinton as he approaches the office that we elected him to.  Meanwhile Rush can
>continue his attacks on our President for the next four years.

>Rush and all the other conservatives are scared to death that the baby-boomers
>are slowly entering our government.  Twenty five years ago our government tried
>to oppress the "Counter Culture" by ending their rallies and demonstrations.  Now


    The baby-boomers are not homogenous.  They mostly voted for Reagan,
and Bush (though not this time).  To say that the baby-boomer retain their
counter-cultural values is to ignore the events of the last 15 years.  Jerry
Rubin has become a stockbroker.  Former student radicals David Horowitz and
Peter Collier are now the co-editors of a well-known conservative monthly.


>we elected two men who were taking part in those very same events.  To scare you

    Al Gore was fighting in Vietnam while the students were
    eating donuts in the Yale Dean's office.

>some more, our president and veep also listen to the Grateful Dead.

    If Clinton won't legalize marijuana, the least he could do is make
        Jerry Garcia Director of the DEA.

> Isn't
>America great?


    Without a doubt.


Andrew Aiken