From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Media Bias at Republican convention
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:24:07 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology


Newsgroups: /dev/null
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hey Roger, this is slick!  Was this just a practical joke, or did you
really not want any responses?


rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:

>>jswitzer@afit.af.mil attempts:
>>
>>Because the Democratic party is caught in the web of special interests.
>>You could run off a laundry list of groups that form and try to control
>>the liberal agenda.  Shall I start?  Environmentalists, abortion
>>activists, minority groups, animal rights activists, feminists, unions,
>>NEA (in a different class from unions), AIDS activists, athiests,
>>lawyers, greenpeace, etc.  I'm sure I'm forgeting a multitude.

>Aside from the fact that making sense out of this paragraph requires
>some real creativity; vis:
>->assertion: demos "caught in a web" of special interest groups.
>(guess: demos are influenced by special interest groups)
>->assertion: you could list groups that try to control liberal agenda
>(what the hell do you mean? guess: the democratic party is concerned about
>the following issues ...)

>You might want to start by recognizing that you've enumerated several of [
>the groups working on ] those issues that are the most important issues to
>'Americans' today.  I'm sure you'd rather these issues were all ignored
>and we concentrated on reeeaalllly important things such as getting prayer
>back into grade schools?  Seat belt law reform?

And *you* may want to start by including the question that I was 
answering in your post.  It's very easy to make somebody look foolish
by editing their article.  

>What is the point?  That folks are concerned about these issues?  That it
>is going to influence who they vote for?  It is a good thing somebody is;
>ignoring them isn't going to make them go away.

If you had really read my whole post, and kept your liberal dander down,
you would have noted that I wasn't decrying any of these special
interests.  I only attempted to enumerate them.

>On the other hand, we could just get George Bush back in there, he's got
>some really great issues he's concerned with (substantial!):  family
>values (!), God in our hearts, capital gains tax cuts, war on drugs,
>school prayer, an apple in every pigs gaping mouth (think we can fit
>another one in there Danny)?

And I choose to make you look foolish by keeping your post unedited...

>Quite a platform he's working up.  Bound to be real effective in solving
>the multitudes of real problems that we and others in the world are
>facing.

>>Conservatives have no such special interest groups hounding them for a piece
>>of the power.  Fundamentalists (a la the Moral Majority) are about it.
>>There is the beginnings of our own pro-choice coalition, but it isn't
>>much of a voice yet.

>Man, you must have posted this while your brain was on vacation.  Either
>that or you have been completely brainwashed.  This is about the most
>ignorant thing I've seen from you yet.  What a waste of my time.

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of activist groups, but I guess
the Republicans have a few.  The NRA and big business come to mind.
I'm sure you can think of more...

>ps. apparently you don't know what 'NEA' stands for (unions??).

I'm not above making a mistake.  The NEA stands for National Education
Association?  As far as I knew, they were a teachers union/professional
organization.  Feel free to let me know if I have erred.

>'lawyers' - 'liberal agenda'?  jeezuz mfc.  George Bush is a lawyer.

Whatever association the lawyers belong to (not the bar...) has 
endorsed the Democratic ticket.  A national police organization has
also done this.  Care to elaborate on how I am mistaken here?

>Tell the truth, I'm not real concerned anyway.  George Bush will not
>win the next presidential election.  I can say this confidently after
>hearing more of the same rhetoric in his acceptance speach.

I am not quite as brash as you.  I'll have to wait and cast my vote 
along with everyone else and see what the outcome is.  And I do always
attempt to tell only the truth.  I also try to remain calm about it.
Discussing the issues in a rational way can be informative for both
sides.  Ranting, like the above, only tends to alienate people and 
make your case that much weaker.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media