From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:08:12 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct13.123115.16005@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) says:
>>>I've mentioned it before, I now mention it again.  THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!
>
>>Just a couple of notes here.  One is once and for all, Fans of Rush Limbaugh
>>can and do think for themselves.
>
>I'm sorry, I can't buy that.  the very term "DittoHead" is very suggestive
>that the person who calls himself that is letting Rush do his thinking for
First dittos are used to save time in superlatives.  They do not imply a state
of mind.  >
>Even his show's opening statement ("The opinions here are not necessarily
>those of the staff or management of the station...but they should be..."
>(and he recently has added "...and soon they will be..")) demonstrates that
>with such clarity that it can't be ignored.
It's a joke sport.  You can laugh!  The world isnt ending tommorow.>
>> If we didn't as university students we
>>would fall into lockstep behind the political correctness of our professors.
>
>Oh nonsense.  I am a college grad...I have attended conservative (Rice)
>moderate (Youngstown State) and liberal (Kent State) universities, and the one
>commonality they have is that the professors really don't w3give a damn about
>your "political correctness".  They only care that you do the assigned work in
>a timely manner, and that you participate.  Most professors, in fact, tend to
>have more respect for those students who dare to disagree with them, and have
>the guts to say so.
As I never attended those particular universities I cannot speak for them. I
Can speak for the University of Texas at San Antonio where a
student that wrote a coherent concise paper against socialized medicine and
was told that here ideas were outdated and wrong.  The instructor further said
she should work for the Republican party.  The paper got a undeserved C.  And
yes I did read it.
>>I'm a Rush Limbaugh fan and my so called "world view" comes from  living in
>>two foreign countries and visiting three continents.  Also I read three daily s
>>papers and listen to the BBC world service.  I also, when I have time, listen to
>>Rush Limbaugh and agree with 90 percent of his opinions.
>
>The question is, did you have these opinions BEFORE you began listening to
>Rush?
Actually you miss the point here.  The reason that Rush is so popular is that
he says exactly what people think.  Most people know the sensationalism and
bias of the main stream media and like the balance Rush provides.
And to answer the question, I had the bulk of my political opinions before I
had ever heard of Rush Limbaugh.>
>>  Know what, what I've
>>lived and seen generally conforms with what Rush says.  Not always but
>>generally.
>
>Indeed?  How many of Rush's "Undeniable truths" do you embrace? (available in
>the FAQ, if you're not familiar with them).  Can you honestly look at these
>and say what you've lived and seen conforms with these?  That list is one of
>the most hateful, prejudiced lists of "Political truth" I've ever seen.
truths are there.  I do promise to read the list and get back to you.
Well I havent seen the list but I assume that some of the things i hold as >
>>  As to the term "lunatic fringe", what James meant to say is that
>>he does not consider himself either lunatic or fringe.  Neither do I.
>
>I think you delude yourself.  Rush has a radically conservative view of the
>world.  You embrace a majority of those views, yet you deny that you are
>radically conservative.
I dont remember denying that I am a conservative.  Your use of the term
Radical bothers me...I would say staunch, or avid....but since I believe
my views are the majority views...I can hardly call them radical.>
>>  In fact
>>we had a short talk about that type of name calling and how that adds nothing
>>to an argument.  I also told him not to sink to your level.
>
>He threw the first stones.  I just replied in kind.
>
>>  I'll debate you
>>on the relative merits of the Rush Limbaugh show until the cows come home.  Ifs
>
>I'm sorry, my newsreader cut off the end of this line.
>
>>Rush's success and that a large number of people listen to and like Rush.
>
>What do you consider a "large number"?  The estimates I've heard are +/-
>13 million.  13 million out of 275 million does not seem, to me, to be a
>large number...
13 million isn't a large number?  It is the most listened to radio talk show i
in the San Antonio market in the last book and I suspect nation wide.

>Further, I think you make a grave error in equating all the persons who listen
>to rush with those who like them.  I'm sure that a significant percentage
>(read: 40% or more) of those who listen to Rush do so in order to get a laugh,
>or to stay informed about what the lunatic fringe, right (I'm sorry, but the
>term is applicable) is doing so they can do everything in their power to
>prevent it from making any REAL impact.
>
See more name calling.....I can assure you sir...I am no lunatic. And guess
what i listen to get a laugh too.  That's the point information and
entertainment.  Another thing are you saying that since Rush is "dangerous"
he should be censored?




>>Lighten up and get over it.
>>
>
>Two points on this...
>
>First, whether you realize it or not, this statement is CLASSIC Rush Limbaugh.
>It is, in fact, a catch-phrase for him.  I would be curious to know whether
>used it previous to becoming a Rush devotee'.
I've been saying lighten up for years.>
>Second, I'm sorry, I can't afford to lighten up.  I agree with the sentiment
>that Rush Limbaugh may be the most dangerous person in America right now, and
>as long as he has a forum to preach his hate and intolerance of all that is
>not of his liking, and has an audience of willing followers, I will continue
>to call that fact to people's attention.
Is the sky falling here?  Is his intolerance any different from you intolerance
of him?  Again are you advocating censorship?

>