From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives!
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 17:29:30 EST
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:

> 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.  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.  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.

I'd be willing to wager a significant sum of money that just the
opposite will happen. Slick Willy is nothing more than Jimmy Carter with
some orthodontia.

I didn't spend much time watching either convention, but if there was
one that stood out for spewing hate, divisiveness, anger, and mistrust,
it was the democratic one.

> 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.

How so? Because Robertson got a 15-minute off-peak block to satisfy the
religious loonies? One could as easily say that since 'ol Rev. Jesse
spoke at the DNC, the Democrats are trying the same thing..

>  Now that the Democrats are gravitating back to the center, I am
> ready to jump ship.  What is the point of calling women "feminazis"?

If the shoe fits... Some women, a tiny minority, belive that men are,
simply by definition, evil, crude, destructive characters. The Klan
would probably find the convictions of these people, without a bit of
reason to back them, comparable to their own hate of blacks, or anybody
different. A nazi is a nazi is a nazi.

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

Making fun of Ted Kennedy is fun because it's so easy; the man is a
buffoon, a symbol of every failure of leftist orthodoxy. Anybdy who can
watch this killer speak about the terrible republican misdeeds against
minorities with a straight face is not someone I want to play poker
with.

Mario is not quite the laughable buffoon Teddy is, but he's a solid
liberal who never met a spanding program he didn't like. His only
solution to economic ills is to tax, borrow, and spend. Luckily, even
the liberal-leaning voters in New York have solidly slammed every bond
act he's put on the ballot.

And last time I checked, it was the left side of the aisle that was
preaching the benefits of isolationism.. Me, I'm all for trade with
anybody that wants to.. If France is stupid enough to sell me a bottle
of wine for $10 that costs $15 to produce, I'll buy until they sober up!

> 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".  

I can see racism in what he says only if you define it as the
"racism-by-results" hogwash that the liberals have been pushing for
years. Is it racism when a person of one color is told - flat out - that
a job is not available, while a person of another color is told that the
job is open? By a government agency?

> 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.

Sadly, this shows the intolerance which pervades the liberal orthodoxy
these days. Anybody who dares to disagree, ask questions, or point out
inconsistencies, is immediately set upon as if by a pack of wild dogs.
Terms like "racist", "nazi", "fascist", "misogynist" are thrown about
with abandon.

One of the saddest effects of this hateful practice is that it dilutes
the meaning of these words until they are nothing more than a shadow of
what they once meant. In my mind, a Nazi is one of the most feared,
hated figures on earth. I associate this word with the showers at
Bergen-Belsen, and the crematoriums filled with tiny bones at Treblinka.

Compare that with what the left slams with the "Nazi" label these days;
Ronald Reagan. We have a generation growing up who believes that the
extermination of a race, one person at a time, is morally equal to, and
no more objectionable than indexing income taxes to inflation.

> 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.

Compare this with current leftist propaganda; such as "college education
is a right, not a privilege". This means that someone has the obligation
to produce the fiscal resources necessary for this education, and may
have those resources taken by force, with no compensation. No matter how
you label it, you're using force to take someone's property. The left
justifies this, saying that the greater good is served.

This system forces a government - a body which can be manipulated by the
whims of the mass, or by the maneuverings of the politically savvy, to
take stewardship of everyone's affairs, making moral judgements left and
right. And it is answerable to noone.

*This* is morally defensible? I find the doctorine of "Use no force
against your fellow man" much more defensible, without half the
contortions necessary to defend socialism.

And it gets worse. How can you defend using up those valuable resources
to educate someone, while these is even one person who goes to bed
hungry on the face of the earth? How can you argue in favor of
limited-membership trade unions, which keep half the work force
unemployed?

> 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).

All persons *are* created equal. They all deserve the same protection
under law. Nothing more, nothing less.



--
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh