NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/12104

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-10 | 21.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc8.harvard.edu!cstone
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What Liberals have done to us already, not what t
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (christopher stone)
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:51:12 EST
References: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu
Lines: 415

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101) writes:
>
>
>Okay, whether you liberals are humor-impaired or not, this is not the
>humor section anymore. This isn't a prediction about how badly you are
>going to mess America up in the next 4 years. It's all about how badly
>you have messed it up in the years until now. This article is going to
>illustrate the principle that fact is wierder than fiction (and often
>more frightening).
>
>And it's a warning that we have unleashed more of the same for the
>next 4 years, only this time, we are on a ride to hell with no brakes,
>no speed limits, and no rest stops for the next 1460 days (plus 1 day
>in leap year '96). We are going to have to hold it in for 4 years, and
>then that 57% of Americans that voted against Clinton in '92, will
>pick up the other 43% and vote for Kemp in '96.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, of those 57%, a good number voted for Ross Perot,
who was a candidate who advocated both CHANGE and a MORE ACTIVE ROLE
FOR GOVERNMENT.
>
>
>
>Do you know what made my blood boil on the night of November 3rd, 1992?
>
>* All those years of being told to accept the Christian-bashing,
>male-bashing, conservative-hating, politically correct bigoted sludge
>that passes for entertainment.

Yep, you uncovered the conspiracy... "Star Trek," "MASH," "All in the
Family" and so on were really not popular shows; they were just marketed
to annoy conservatives.  And we all know how pro-feminist "Married with
Children" is.  Seriously, you claim that liberals are minority, but
that TV shows are aimed at liberals; how then do networks turn a
profit (which is what they're interested in)?

>* All those people who hate meat and who talk about bombing animal
>research facilities and fur factories, and who subscribe to
>eco-feminist animal lib journals, and who are then found 10 minutes
>later at some pro-choice rally. Among whom you can ALWAYS count on
>finding one of those terrorist enviro-Nazi's that do their dirt for
>years and perhaps hundreds of thousands of $$$ of damage, before the
>media ever thinks about reporting it.

That's funny, I never heard Bill Clinton endorese fire-bombing animal
research facilities.  And the fact that Tsongas, a Democrat, recovered
(or so we thought) from cancer thanks in part to animal research means
very few Democrats really think this way.  As for "terrorism," just
what do you call operation rescue?

> The Barbara Walters and Ted Turners of the world who work hard to
>challenge pro-life thought and then take all the intellectual and
>other scandals to be found in the pro-choice ideology, and bury them
>so far underground that you need to dig all the way to China to find
>traces of them.

>* Social workers who all seem to think Jerry Brown is a saint and that
>the only way to create the utopia they dream about, is to raise taxes,
>raise more taxes, and raise taxes on top of more taxes to pay taxes,
>so the government can not only help those who fall unfortunately into
>welfare, but the most disgusting group in the world: THOSE WHO (AB)USE
>WELFARE AS A LIFESTYLE. They go crazy when someone tries to explain to
>them that there is another way to go about it.

Some empirical evidence that social worker idolize Jerry Brown, please? :)
BTW, I will not argue with your points about welfare dependency...and
neither will Bill Clinton, had you bothered to listen to the Democratic
National Convention rather than dismiss it out of hand.  You points are
well taken.
As regards taxes, I do not think that the lowest tax rate is always the
best, providing the people have some say over how taxes are spent.  The USA
has the LOWEST tax rates of any industrialized country.  I challenge you
to say in all honesty that there is no government-run program you do not
support or have benefitted from...such programs require taxes.  Education
and student loans are a good example.  Student loans may require taxes, but
in the long run they help our economy by providing us with a better-educated
citizenry.

>* The ACT-UP crowd that runs around vandalizing and attacking churches,
>while the liberals demand that we "try to understand" them.
>* The fact that the liberals slammed efforts to defund anti-Christian
>bigoted art such as "Piss Christ," that infamous NEA-funded picture of
>a crucifix in a bottle of urine. They said that it is FREE SPEECH.
>Yet, look at what they do about Rush Limbaugh - they tried to censor
>him in Sacramento. Heaven knows where else they want him removed from
>the non-government-funded air waves; they have successfully censored
>Rush from Washington, DC. And then they go nuts when Christians try to
>ban Huckleberry Finn from school textbooks.

I am a Democrat, but I like to listen to Rush.  Rush would not be
as successful as he is without liberals tuning in too.  Hence, I do
not think there is any conspiracy on the part of liberals to keep Rush
off the air in DC.  Rush even admits that liberals tune in when he says,
"liberals please add $10 extra" for his newsletter.
Also, you conservatives love to rant on about the joys of the free market,
that supply and demand should determine everything.  Well, if DC is as liberal
as you claim, then what is wrong with not putting Rush on the air if there
is no demand for him?

> The cry by the media and liberals that conservatives are out to
>censor people, yet who was out there to censor Pennsylvania Governor
>Robert Casey? 100 LIBERALS from ACT-UP, who figured that when 300
>people asked them to be quiet and let him speak, they must have been a
>screaming minority at the event. Since this is true, I have had to
>rewrite my math: "300 is less than 100." Now, I am no longer offending
>liberals.

Actually, I do not support the decision not to let Casey speak.  However,
the fallacy you are once again committing is saying that a tiny minority
or radicals speaks for all liberals.  Remember, you can't condemn all
liberals if you admit that 300 were in favor of Casey speaking.

> And that leads me to another peeve: Leaving separation of church and
>state aside, let's explore a generalization issue here. Can someone
>tell me how is it that the Pat Robertson crowd is so damned RACIST,
>when the REASON why they stood against Huckleberry Finn, was because
>the book had RACIST tones against African-Americans? Say this to
>yourself: "The Religious Right is a racist institution that wants to
>ban Huckleberry Finn because it had an anti-black racist slur." Now,
>say, "Liberal Democrats against taxes," or better yet, "Feminists for
>Andrew Dice Clay."

First of all, no one is suggesting we BAN Pat Robertson, just that we
shouldn't VOTE for him.  There's a difference.  Secondly, I would argue
that most liberals (and there IS, to repeat, a difference between liberals
and politically correct people), aren't in favor of censoring books.
Third, are you sure that the reason the Right wants to ban Huck Finn
is because of its (supposed) racism, or is it for some other reason?
I could go on, but I see no need.

>* The absolute ignorance of "taxation without representation" in that
>we are somehow obligated to spend billions on every nation in the
>world EXCEPT, seemingly, ourselves.

This puzzles me.  Bush's claim to reelection was his purported expertise
on foreign policy, yet here we have a Republican who argues that foreign
policy is really worthless.  All right, then, where is the Republican
domestic agenda?
BTW, I believe that foreign policy is important, which is why I supported
Bill Clinton, not Tom Harkin or Bob Kerrey, in the Demo primaries.

>* The efforts by the liberals and the liberal media to outlaw guns for
>all citizens, so that we may all be left open and defenseless against
>any thug that walks into our homes with illegal weapons.

Well, even Ronald Reagan endorsed the Brady Bill, but that wasn't
good enough for George Bush.  What annoys me is the conservative's
stance that ANY limitation on guns -- even say, registration of semi-
automatic weapons -- will lead to an outright ban.  I opposed tampering
with the Bill of Rights to outlaw flag burning, and I also oppose
tampering with it to outlaw guns.  But there can be reasonable limitations
on our right to own guns.  It's common sense that we should not be
allowed to drive until we have demonstrated we are capable of it
by earning a driver's license; so why is it so outlandish to say that
we should have a gun-ownership licence as well?  Oh, I forgot, a
communist takeover is imminent and then the government will know
who the resistence is. :)

>* I am also peeved at the media that LIED about the economy until the
>very day after their lies got their hand-picked candidate elected.

Look, no matter who got elected, the recession was going to end.  The
big question was the long-term direction of our economy -- are we
going to adopt a coherent industrial policy and promote research and
development in high technology, or are we going to allow the "free
market" to saddle us with no industrial policy at all, hurting our
competitivness vis-a-vis Japan, Germany, and co?  Bill Clinton was
FOR industrial policy.

>* Militant feminists who, in one breath talk about abortion being a
>free choice, and who at the same time in April of 1992, attacked
>pornography because "it is inherently harmful to women." These are the
>same people who, in Maryland, tried to hide the harm that an abortion
>mill did to women, in that state. And these are the same people who
>have an inherent hatred towards beauty pageants because "they are
>inherently harmful to women." When it serves them, free choice is
>their shield - but when it comes to something that is repulsive to
>them, free choice is irrelevant. And while women hardly ever die in
>the pornography industry, 12 women died in that Maryland clinic alone.

But you are missing the point.  Women have the right to determine
FOR THEMSELVES what is harmful and what isn't.  Men need not do it
for them.  Also, please remember that true liberals are for free speech
and do not favor banning pornography (unless, possibly, it is blatantly
hard-core).

>* The fact that if a man wore a shirt making fun of women and their
>attitudes, it would get him in enormous trouble - yet if a woman wears
>a button reading "The more I know men the more I like my cat," it's
>okay and evokes sympathy. Or, as Bill Clinton says, "I want to FEEL
>your pain."

No quarrel with the T-shirt point, but as regards Clinton's statement,
would you rather have a President like Bush who is aloof from the
concerns of everyday Americans? (so much so he doesn't know what a
supermarket checkout scanner is :))

>* Bill Clinton telling pro-life Democrats to "get out of the Party and
>join the Republicans," and censoring pro-life Governor Robert Casey of
>Pennsylvania, and at the same time telling us "let's get together,
>America." Later, they look at the Republicans and say THEY are
>divisive...

Would you please tell me exactly when Bill Clinton said this quote about
getting out of the party?
Even if he did say it, surely you will agree that political parties have
the right to take a stand on something.  Taken to the extreme, they could
welcome anybody and allow all stances, but then there would be not point
in having parties, would there?  The real question is, whose stance is
correct?

>* The fact that the media has never, ever reported the fact that
>Democrats originally intended representatives from US Territories (NOT
>states), who have no constitutional right to vote officially, to help
>decide policies in the US House of Representatives. Republicans on
>Cable TV were almost hysterical about trying to get this out to
>America because the media censors these moves by Democrats - yet the
>slightest whisper of Republican madness, gets out in a flash -
>including absolutely unfounded claims like the one in TV Guide on the
>week of Jan.11, saying former President Reagan voted for Bill Clinton.
>Had the Democrats not later changed this, and had actually enacted
>this legislation, America would never know.

I really don't know enough about the situation to comment in depth,
but I would say that people from territories like Puerto Rico are
American citizens and should have some voice in the government, even
if their Reps can't vote.  BTW, whenever someone discusses statehood
for places like Puerto Rico and DC (so the representatives could
vote legitimately,) they are met with howls of protest from
conservatives.

>* The fact that liberals and the media hammer conservatives day and
>night for any mistake their leaders make - yet huge, gaping holes in
>liberal thought, are covered up, locked away, and guarded by screaming
>fanatics whom they program to automatically scream, "IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
>IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! Bzzt - this is a recording.. IT
>DIDN'T HAPPEN! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.."

I grant that this is part of human nature.  Conservatives do to too,
though.

>* The hoardes of liberals who slam nuclear power, cars, oil, and other
>vital parts of American technology, life and convenience, all in the
>name of Earth. Yet these same liberals are driving around in cars,
>just like the rest of us. When pressed, they ultimately say that
>technology is going to destroy us and that we really don't need it,
>and then ten seconds later, claim conservatives want to take us into
>the Dark Ages....
>* The liberals who, every time the issue of crime comes up, try to
>blame it on the economy and take responsibility away from the
>offender. And the ACLU activists who, out of lack of access to a
>normal life, have done everything they can in the last 1xxxx years to
>protect the rights of criminals, screw the rights of victims.
>* People like New York City Chancellor of Education Joe Fernandez, who
>fought to erase abstinence education in order to replace it with AIDS
>education, which he said conflicted with the former. The same people
>who, when the same thing is done about abortion funding, cry "Gag
>Rule!"

No, we liberals are not against telling students about abstinence, but
we also believe they should know all their options -- that abstinence
may be best, but condom usage is second best.  What would be akin to
the Gag Rule is *not* telling students about condoms.

>* The liberal crowd that hammered Dan Quayle for his joining the
>National Guard during the Vietnam War, and then who said Bill
>Clinton's draft record was none of our business.

You neglected to mention one crucial difference: Clinton was morally
opposed to the war in Vietnam, while Quayle was for it but unwilling
to serve personally.

>* The black racial purists who think they can go around lynching black
>men who marry or date outside their race (but then who don't say a
>thing about Whoopi Goldberg or Diana Ross). Again, this is another
>shining example of how, suddenly, free choice suddenly becomes
>irrelevant.

Again, what makes you so sure that all liberals agree with the "Black
racial purists" (TM)?  If you are so much in support of free choice,
then why don't you support legal abortion, or, as you were discussing
before, the right of high school students to *chose* between condoms
and abstinence?

>* The "African-American" movement that looks at Clarence Thomas and
>James Meredith as "Uncle Tom's," and who looks at the anti-semitic
>Jesse Jackson as "a hero."

Actually, a lot of liberals are pro-Israel (Clinton is), and dislike
Jackson for that reason.  I myself am not pro-Israel -- i.e., I support
Palestinian statehood -- yet nonetheless, Jackson's hymietown remark
was offensive and should be condemned.  Clinton served on the Democratic
Leadership Council to reclaim our party from the likes of Jackson.
(BTW, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and
moderate Republicans like Dole have recently founded their own version
of the DLC.)

>* Marion Barry, who was busted for using drugs, only to be elected to
>the Washington, DC city council after he got out of prison. In the
>same city where Rush Limbaugh is censored, guns are illegal, and the
>death penalty is outlawed.

If I lived in DC, I wouldn't vote for him, but nonetheless, according
to the democratic process which conservatives purport to uphold, citizens
of DC can vote for whomever they chose.

>* The fact that liberals can make fun of conservatives in comics, news
>stories, TV shows, movies and what-have-you, yet when it is done to
>them, they get angry about it.

Oh, like Rush NEVER makes fun of liberals.  Face it, he gets upset at
critcism too.  Bush also got upset at criticism from the liberals --
"I'm sick of it."

>* The dominant media that is running more and more stories every day
>that preaches tolerance towards gays, but who make fun of abstinence.
>It is because of them and the Sexual Revolution, that kids now make
>fun of this idea, in and out of the same schools where they are being
>taught to accept all the other sexual lifestyles.

Do you therefore propose that we *should* discriminate against gays?
Even Bush opposed that idea.

>* The crazy Congress without whom there would have been no tax
>increase for Bush to sign in 1990, and who is also responsible for the
>Check Kiting scandal, the House Post Office Scandal, and who also
>voted for raises for themselves. All while blaming Ronald Reagan and
>George Bush for single-handedly destroying the US economy.

Two facts for you: the biggest budget deficits were passed during the
years 1983-1990, when Republicans controlled the Senate, and secondly,
if the Congress had passed all of Reagan/Bush's budget submission intact,
with no changes, wthe budget deficit would actually be higher than it is
now.  If Bush had never made unrealistic promises like "no new taxes"
which he understood he'd have to break, he would not have had to cave
in to the big, bad Democratic Congress.  As regards the pay raise, a good
deal of Republicans voted for it too, and a good deal of Republicans
wrote bad checks too.

>* The fact that, because these militant, crazy people, went into
>hiding, their leader has just been elected the President of the United
>States.

Every think the militants were afraid of Clinton?

>And then, to top off all of this outrage:
>
>                     "I want to FEEL your pain."
>                     - Bill Clinton

Again, I guess you'd prefer an aloof President, like George Bush.
>
>Well, in a summation: You ARE my pain, Slick Willie. All those nuts
>who helped get you elected, now have free reign across the country
>now. They have been celebrating and celebrating and celebrating, and
>after January 20th, they will have nothing to stand between them and
>their hidden agendas, which include gag-ruling, censorship, and
>Congressional corruption - all things which they blame Republicans and
>Conservatives for.
>
>
>
>
> The one thing that satisfied me this Christmas season, was when I
>went to a bookstore to buy Rush's book, there was a crowd there
>waiting for the arrival of the new shipment of books. There was a
>woman at the counter, and she was so happy about the arrival of these
>books and those 100 dittoheads that crowded that store more than I've
>ever seen it crowded before, that she was biting her lip, shifting her
>feet, and almost scowling at us as we lined up to buy the book. I saw
>this and started making wisecracks at militant feminists, and got the
>crowd laughing.
>

You, my friend, are no Rush Limbaugh.

> For once I was able to see a liberal feminist get angry, with no way
>to vent her anger without getting fired. For ten minutes, the liberals
>weren't laughing at us. The next time we see that, will be in 1996,
>when we kick off Slick Willie and bring in Jack Kemp.
> Until then, all the injustices Liberals inflict upon society, will
>grow and flourish, unreported, unseen by the media, and covered up
>whenever someone tries to talk about it. THIS is no joke and no list
>of humorous predictions - if things are consistent, liberals will, in
>the next 4 years, covertly lessen freedom in this country in worse
>ways in which they claim conservatives would.

Mommy, mommy, the big bad Liberals are coming!!!
Gee, the liberals will lessen freedom while the conservatives refuse
to inform women of their option to get an abortion, oppose giving the people
of DC their right, as American citizens, to real representation in Congress,
disapprove of "alternate lifestyles" (only need freedom for normal people,
you know) and "promicuous lifetyles," don't want students to know about
condoms, etc.  Liberals will destroy our country's economy while the
wonderful conservatives refuse to adopt industrial policy and let
Germany and Japan overtake us in high tech industries.  Makes sense to
me :)
Kemp? Bring him on!

>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
                            ^^^^
                             Ah, this explains it!  Prepare to be
                 assimilated into the conservative hive!
                             Liberalism is futile!!!

>  USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
>          (Whooboy that means LOTSA time for all this?)
>                  The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.

You are no Rush Limbaugh.  Sorry for this long post but someone must refute
all this nonsense.

Chris