NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9555

Text File | 1992-11-12 | 3.5 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 20:43:10 GMT
Lines: 61

In <grendel.721584279@camelot>, Alyosha Bourgea writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail].

>>In article <grendel.721285610@camelot> [e-mail] (Alyosha Bo
(A lot of arguing about relative merits of current and potential Justices
 has been deleted)

>>>He'd be a hell of a lot better choice than Thomas was. The Court is supposed
>>>to be balanced. Cuomo, a liberal, would do better than Thomas to balance out
>>>the ideology of the Court.

>>Crap.  I didn't hear any of you liberals whinning about balance when you
>>had the court in your hip pocket.  After listening to you folks cry about
>>the supreme court for the last several years I just have to smile when
>>you accuse us of whinning about the presidential election.  We have got
>>nothing on you.

Well, partially true.  I haven't heard the liberals complaining about the
lack of balance in Congress--have you?  I'd say that 38 years of controlling
one branch of government is even less balance than 12 years of controlling a
different branch.  The difference between moderate Democrats and flaming
liberals is that the moderate Democrats can usually face the truth.

>I don't know who or when you're referring to, but the court hasn't been in the
>hip pocket of the liberals since Warren Burger, and that was quite a bit befor

Warren Burger?  Before you were born?  Didn't he retire in 1986?

I think you may mean Earl Warren (of _Miranda_ and Exclusionary Rule fame).

>I was born.  You're right, I might not have whined back then.  But neither, I
>suspect, would you--unless you want to whine about desegregation, etc.  Of
>course, desegregation is not considered a liberal ideal today, but just
>remember who initiated it.  If it hadn't been for those crazy liberals...

But if the President (according to liberals) is responsible for all that is
bad, then what about credit for good things?  Didn't desegregation occur in
a Republican administration (Eisenhower)?  And "liberal" had a different
meaning in the 1950s--back then, "liberal" was closer to libertarian, and
segregation was government-enforced discrimination (by most Southern states
in the form of Jim Crow laws) which classical liberals despised (and rightly
so).

>Nevertheless, this is moot. I haven't had a chance to be smug about government
>for any of the eighteen years of my life, because government has consistently
>been controlled by either conservatives or ineffectual liberals like Carter.

Hmmm...Congress isn't a part of the government?  38 years of controlling one
branch of government isn't a part of "controlling government?"  Hmmm...I think
I must have been hoodwinked in my civics class, since they told me that the
legislative branch (Congress) was indeed a part of the government.

I'm not trying to defend Reagan/Bush here; I'm just pointing out that there is
more to government than the presidency.  Liberals rarely admit that Congress
has played a role in the problems we face today (a few do admit it, though).
Nevertheless, we're in deep guano, and finger-pointing about the past isn't
going to do much to secure a better future.

Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************