From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives! (Analysis)
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:46:30 GMT
Reply-To: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Nov7.175837.18237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:
|>
|>
|>OK, I admit that my last post was inflammatory, but I was still 
|>basking in the glow of a beautiful Clinton landslide victory.  I suppose

We've already gon over this...  Five points does not a landslide make.

|>I let my emotions get the better of me.
|>
|>Nevertheless, I do feel that Mr. Limbaugh's days are numbered.  This kind
|>of arch-conservative vitriol that he is spewing cannot have any staying
|>power.

What exactly is an "arch-conservative"?  You give no reason to support
your belief that Rush can't last, and instead of talking calmly
discussing your point of view you have to use loaded words like
"spewing" and "vitriolic".  In fact, Rush is just having a little fun at
liberals' expense.  What's the problem?

  The hate and divisiveness that he encourages (along with other
|>notable Republicans, such as David Duke and the two Pats, Buchanan and
|>Robertson) will not last.

How can you equate these three, unless you have only a superficial
knowledge of them and their politics based on what others have told you?
This Buchanan-Duke discussion is old and tired, and anyone who has read
his autobiography realizes that he does not fit the suit you have
tailored for him here.  To say that Pat Robertson encourages hate and
divisiveness is to miss completely the point of religion.  Want to know
where Robertson gets his ideas?  Read the gospels.

  Democracy is not isolationism.  Yes, 
|>democracy is freedom of speech, and I support Mr. Limbaugh's right to
|>speak freely.  In fact, I encourage it, because that it is what will ruin
|>him in the end.

Actualy, democracy *isn't* freedom of speech; instead, freedom of speech
is a key component and necessary condition of democracy.  But more
importantly, nowhere has Rush espoused a doctrine of isolationism.  And
you obviously do not understand why Rush's audience continues to
grow--there is a substantial portion of America who appreciates a
prominent media figure espousing conservative viewpoints.  Others enjoy
his humor and like to see him point out the hypocrisies of liberals. 
Whatever the reasons, many are hooked.

|>To all of the faithful Limbaugh fans out there (and yes, I have heard his
|>show many times), how can you defend his positions?  I am a registered 
|>Republican, but I am offended that my party is leaning so far to the 
|>right.  Now that the Democrats are gravitating back to the center, I am
|>ready to jump ship.

An interesting confession.

|>What is the point of calling women "feminazis"?

He calls dedicated pro-abortionists "feminazis."

|>Or belittling Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo?

Maybe because the two of them have done some pretty stupid things in
their lives?

  Come on, guys,
|>let's look at the hypocrisy of it all.  What makes Rush better than these
|>people?  What makes upper middle class white males the paragons of 
|>virtue?  What intelligent debate can stem from mindless generalizations 
|>and isolationism?  

Rush claims to be better because he respects the rights of individuals
instead of treating people like their only worth is as a member of a group.

|>I'll be the first to admit that Rush is brilliant.  He is brilliant 
|>because he cloaks his racist, misogynistic ideas behind the facade of
|>actual issues and policies.  This provides him and his fans with
|>readymade, rational defenses to any attacks and fools the many 
|>listeners out there into thinking that he is the "voice of reason".

Racist?  Misogynistic?  While I realize these sorts of attacks are
almost required by anyone attacking the positions or the person of a
conservative, I will nevertheless assume you have some reason for saying
these things and ask you: what are they?
  
|>His fans are taken in by his charisma and style, and they are almost
|>subliminally implanted with his ideas of hate and violence.  Most
|>frightening of all, is that some people out there actually would admit
|>to subscribing wholeheartedly to those ideas that Rush glosses over with
|>his charm.

Subliminally implanted with ideas of hate and violence?  Is that what
you think he was doing when he condemned the riots in LA?  Or when he
said that we should not rush headlong into Bosnia?  Again, you use a
favorite liberal ad hominem attack, and again I ask you to justify it.

|>The problem with staunch conservatism is that it is a morally 
|>indefensible position.  It often (not always) promotes selfishness under
|>the guise of "free enterprise", ignores social problems by citing
|>"lack of government involvement" and perpetuates the subjugation of
|>women (see "feminazis").  Now I know that not all conservatives fall
|>into this moral quagmire, but too many do.  And Rush encourages it.

How is the belief that each individual should be left free to make
his/her own choices and then take full responsibility for those choices?
How is it indefensible to argue that government's main purpose should be
to protect the rights of the individual against attack?  How is it
indefensible to argue that economic choice fall under the guise of rights?  

You obviously don't actually *know* any conservatives.  While I argue
that the federal government should not be telling me how to spend my
money, I still donate to charities.  I know this is something you find
incomprehensible, since your conception of a conservative most likely
includes horns and a tail, so you could never imagine one helping others
of his/her *own free will*.

Conservatives argue that free enterprise is in fact the most moral,
since it does the most of all economic systems to maximize potential of
all its members while helping the most those who need it most.  The fact
is, socialism hurts those upon whom it is imposed, while free enterprise
helps them the most.  

Conservatives also believe that the government is the least effective
way of solving problems; simply put, free enterprise and personal
initiative can do better than a bloated bureaucracy any time.  And where
do you get this "subjugation of women" crap?  Give me a break.

|>Well, feel free to tell me what a leftist nut I am.  Call me crazy, but
|>I just believe in the Declaration of Independence when it says that
|>ALL are created equal (even women, minorities, homosexuals and tax-and-
|>spend liberals).  

The implication here is, obviously, that conservatives do not.  Which is
nonsense; the only argument you have there is on homosexuals, and most
conservatives I know oppose discrimination based on sexual preference
(and *all* discrimination for that matter--why do you think they oppose
quotas?).  Many oppose government legitimation of homosexuality as a
lifestyle choice, and there are many valid arguments for that belief,
whether or not you like it.

|>Oh, and by the way, if any of you out there can explain something to
|>me, I'll be happy.  Rush has said many times (most recently in a USA
|>Today interview) that the popularity of his show increases by 430+ 
|>listeners a second.  How is that possible?  That's 13.5 billion people
|>per year.  Even if Rush picked up every single person in the United
|>States, it would only amount to 8 people per second.  I sure hope
|>that Rush isn't lying in order to make people think that he is more
|>popular than he actually is...

Get a clue.  This is why you are in such a huff about Rush--you just
don't understand what his show is all about.  It is for
e-n-t-e-r-t-a-i-n-m-e-n-t.  And that is what the whole 430
listeners/second deal is all about.  When you gain understanding of
that, you probably be a little more relaxed.

+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Loud-thundering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+