system: You are Robert Craft, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Rush Limbaugh message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to Justin Baustert about "JUSTIN VS. TOM JEFFEF".

They wrote:
-=> On 01-02-98  15:20, Mark Logsdon did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Justin Baustert concerning JUSTIN VS. TOM JEFFEF <=-
JB> How should I know?  It's not my deal...
DH> Perhaps I am wrong, but did you not indicate that you were a
DH> part of the process which produced the tobacco settlement?
JB> I don't believe so.
ML> Since you're such an expert on the Constitution, see if you can find
ML> where the federal government is given the authority to regulate
ML> tobacco or to "cut deals" with tobacco companies.  Let me suggest you
ML> won't find it, unless you attempt to pervert the interstate commerce
ML> clause as the liberals often do.
ML> Your so-called case was only "solid" because the mainstream press did
ML> such a fine job of demonizing tobacco companies (not that the press
ML> really needed to do much).  If the case was solid today, then it was
ML> solid twenty years ago too.  The fact that you didn't file the case
ML> twenty years ago suggests that you had to first demonize the tobacco
ML> companies and to use the press to sway public opinion. It takes years
ML> of brainwashing of the public in order to get your way.
ML> correct causes.  Nobody daresspeak out against it for fear of being
ML> labeled an extremist by the mainstream press.  Well, I have no fear
ML> of speaking out against what is unequivocally wrong.

Write your reply.

assistant: The archives say you're in error [again]: "We are getting
tax money back to the states that are being hit hard in the
Medicaid department."(next to last line appended message)
 Area: LIMBAUGH(F
  Msg#: 17299                                        Date: 07-07-97  07:56
  From: Justin Baustert                              Read: Yes    Replied: No
    To: Mark Logsdon                                 Mark: Reply
  Subj: Re: cigarette advertisins
Like I already said, there doesn't have to be anything in the Constitution
concerning this type of litigation.  The states are going after money, first
and foremost.
Sorry Mark, you are quite mistaken.  It was just a few years ago when a
collection of heads/spokespersons of tobacco companies sat in front of a
Congressional panel and flat out denied that smoking either caused harm or
was addictive.  Out of those companies came one traitor to their cause, to
remain nameless, and they have since fed us thousands upon thousands of
documents showing *exactly* what smoking has done.  The tobacco companies
demonized themselves by lying about the problems in the first place.
Since this type of litigation doesn't require to be placed against the
Constitution, your whole thought process is skewed.  We are getting tax
money
back to the states that are being hit hard in the Medicaid department.
Explain to us why making someone pay to "clean up" their mess is wrong..
JB
Telegard v3.02/mL
Origin: Courier Central \ Cashion, OK \ 405.433.2665 (1:147/92)
... The Martians are a happy people; they have no lawyers. -- ERB
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20