Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Stephen J Thomas
.....it is being updated to reflect the changes in the FSU (NO, not Florida
State Univ, the 'former' Soviet Union).
Steve Thomas sjth...@cup.portal.com
------
Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of
the Soviet Union.
2. The single greatest threat to the free people of the world is
posed by the Soviet Union.
3. Peace does not mean the removal of nuclear weapons.
4. Peace does not mean the absence of war.
5. War is not obsolete.
6. Ours is a world governed by the agressive use of force.
7. There is only one way to eliminate nuclear weapons...use them.
8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or
with the Russian people.
9. Americans opposing America is not always courageous. Sometimes
it is dangerous.
10. Communism kills.
11. Neither the United States, nor anyone else imposes freedom on
the people of other nations. Freedom is not an imposition.
12. Freedom is God-given. It is the natural state to which humans
yearn.
13. To the Soviet Union, peace means the absense of opposition.
14. To free people, peace means the absense of threat and the
presence of justice.
15. The peace movement in the United States, whether by accident
or by design, is pro-Communist.
16. The collective knowledge and wisdom of senior citizens is the
most valuable, yet untapped, resource our young people have.
17. The greatest football team in the history of civilization: the
Pittsburgh Steelers of 1975 to 1980.
18. There is no such thing as war atrocities. War IS an atrocity.
19. Regardless of the pain, nostalgia only takes us to those
pleasant memories in our past.
20. There IS a god.
21. Abortion is wrong.
22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.
23. Evolution cannot explain creation.
24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have
access to the mainstream of society.
25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
26. The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
Soviet leaders is that he is alive.
27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
28. Despite what they are teaching at the University of Missouri,
Abraham Lincoln saved this nation.
29. The wherever-they-happen-to-be Raiders will never be the team
they were as when they called Oakland home.
30. The United States will again go to war.
31. To more and more people, a victorious United States is a
sinful United States.
32. This is frightening and ominous.
33. There will always be poor people.
34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush
Limbaugh, or any other rich person.
35. You should thank God for making you an American.
Thomas Zych
>
>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 1. The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of
> the Soviet Union.
The second greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of the
United States.
>
> 3. Peace does not mean the removal of nuclear weapons.
This is backwards. It should be "The removal of nuclear weapons does not
create peace."
>
> 4. Peace does not mean the absence of war.
Unfortunately, true.
>
> 5. War is not obsolete.
But neither should it be a matter of first resort.
>
> 6. Ours is a world governed by the agressive use of force.
Unfortunately, true.
>
> 7. There is only one way to eliminate nuclear weapons...use them.
Unfortunately, probably also true.
>
> 8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or
> with the Russian people.
Myopic and xenophobic.
>
> 9. Americans opposing America is not always courageous. Sometimes
> it is dangerous.
But it must always be allowed. Besides, what is "dangerous"? When we
disagree with RL?
>
>10. Communism kills.
So does Capitalism, Socialism, and just about any other -ism you care to name.
>
>11. Neither the United States, nor anyone else imposes freedom on
> the people of other nations. Freedom is not an imposition.
But we will impose and/or support a friendly (to us) government, even if it
denies basic freedoms to its own people.
>
>12. Freedom is God-given. It is the natural state to which humans
> yearn.
OK.
>
>13. To the Soviet Union, peace means the absense of opposition.
The same could be said of Rush.
>
>14. To free people, peace means the absense of threat and the
> presence of justice.
And none of them sick homos or anyone else who's different from us.
>
>15. The peace movement in the United States, whether by accident
> or by design, is pro-Communist.
Huh?
>
>16. The collective knowledge and wisdom of senior citizens is the
> most valuable, yet untapped, resource our young people have.
I agree.
>
>17. The greatest football team in the history of civilization: the
> Pittsburgh Steelers of 1975 to 1980.
>
>18. There is no such thing as war atrocities. War IS an atrocity.
Terribly true...
>
>19. Regardless of the pain, nostalgia only takes us to those
> pleasant memories in our past.
>
>20. There IS a god.
Whether there is a supreme being or not, and what form(s) that being takes, is
purely a matter of personal belief. Although since he _could_ have said "There
IS a God, and it's the Judeo-Christian God", I suppose I should be happy that
Rush at least accepts that Islam, Hinduism, and any other god-based religion is
an acceptable belief system.
>
>21. Abortion is wrong.
But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.
>
>22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.
True. It is defined by society, and a changing society can change what it
considers moral or immoral. And each individual must determine for themselves
whether they wish to live within society's definition of morality or whether to
create and live within their own morality. In effect, our morality is not
pure right or wrong, it's our (society's) current opinions as to what is right
or wrong.
>
>23. Evolution cannot explain creation.
And creation cannot explain evolution.
>
>24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have
> access to the mainstream of society.
Misogynist.
>
>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
How about hate? If hate could be controlled, there'd be no need for war.
>
>26. The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
> Soviet leaders is that he is alive.
Mikhail Gorbachev introduced reforms which _limited_ his own power, eventually
to the point where he lost _all_ of his power. Name another Soviet leader who
willingly gave away power.
>
>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>
>28. Despite what they are teaching at the University of Missouri,
> Abraham Lincoln saved this nation.
>
>29. The wherever-they-happen-to-be Raiders will never be the team
> they were as when they called Oakland home.
>
>30. The United States will again go to war.
Certainly.
>
>31. To more and more people, a victorious United States is a
> sinful United States.
Perhaps it's because of the reasons we go to war?
>
>32. This is frightening and ominous.
Why? Because Americans dare to stand up and say that their gov't is wrong?
>
>33. There will always be poor people.
Unfortunately, true.
>
>34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush
> Limbaugh, or any other rich person.
Although they certainly haven't tried to do anything to ease the situation,
either.
>
>35. You should thank God for making you an American.
As long as you're a white heterosexual male from a well-to-do family.
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych tjz2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois |
| tz1...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu | at Urbana-Champaign... |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| A witty slogan should appear here. | And probably over here as well. |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
--
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych tjz2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois |
| tz1...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu | at Urbana-Champaign... |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
en...@woods.ulowell.edu
>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>
>>
>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or
>> with the Russian people.
>
> Myopic and xenophobic.
>
This is probably dated, reffering to the Soviet States total dominance
of every aspect of Russian life.
>>20. There IS a god.
>
> Whether there is a supreme being or not, and what form(s) that being takes, is
> purely a matter of personal belief. Although since he _could_ have said "There
> IS a God, and it's the Judeo-Christian God", I suppose I should be happy that
> Rush at least accepts that Islam, Hinduism, and any other god-based religion
>is an acceptable belief system.
One minor point. The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition is also the
God of the Islamic tradition. Allah, as Moslems call God, is one in the
same with Yawheh, Jesuus Christ, and The Holy Spirit.
>
>>
>>21. Abortion is wrong.
>
> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.
Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE.
The old saying goes here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
fire." It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose. If a human being
in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
want your livver out take it out) but human life is just that human life.)
>>23. Evolution cannot explain creation.
>
> And creation cannot explain evolution.
Here's one that'll shock ya. According to my religion teacher in
Catholic H.S., who also happened to be the Biology Teacher, the Catholic Church
now teaches that the 7 days of creation were more like periods of time, the
word DAYS was used figuratively to help make the understanding clearer.
Creation does surprisingly follow the chronological events proven by evolution.
>
>>
>>26. The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
>> Soviet leaders is that he is alive.
>
> Mikhail Gorbachev introduced reforms which _limited_ his own power, eventually
> to the point where he lost _all_ of his power. Name another Soviet leader who
> willingly gave away power.
>
I'll agrree to this one.
>>30. The United States will again go to war.
>
> Certainly.
>
And the Draft Dodging Bill Clinton will be on the front line so he can
prove his manhood.
>>
>>33. There will always be poor people.
>
> Unfortunately, true.
But there will be less if we give them a "Hand Up" not a "Hand
Out"--Jack Kemp Rep National Convention also plagurized by Clinton in his
"acceptance speech"
> +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
> | Tom Zych tjz2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois |
> | tz1...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu | at Urbana-Champaign... |
> +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
> | The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
> +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
> | A witty slogan should appear here. | And probably over here as well. |
> +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>
> --
> +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
> | Tom Zych tjz2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois |
> | tz1...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu | at Urbana-Champaign... |
> +--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Robert R. Eno
A Conservative Voice in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
Alex Kamilewicz
>>In article <Bxtov...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>tz1...@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>>
>>
>> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
>> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.
>
> Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE.
>The old saying goes here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
>fire." It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
>incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose. If a human being
>in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
>want your livver out take it out) but human life is just that human life.)
What if she was already trying to avoid getting pregnant, i.e. like using
birth control, and it happened anyway?
>>>23. Evolution cannot explain creation.
>>
>> And creation cannot explain evolution.
>
>
> Here's one that'll shock ya. According to my religion teacher in
>Catholic H.S., who also happened to be the Biology Teacher, the Catholic Church
>now teaches that the 7 days of creation were more like periods of time, the
>word DAYS was used figuratively to help make the understanding clearer.
>Creation does surprisingly follow the chronological events proven by evolution.
Fine, but does it completely explain evolution? I'll agree that the
similarity is interesting and striking, but there are still some serious
facts lacking here. That's why we have faith.
>>>30. The United States will again go to war.
>>
>> Certainly.
>>
> And the Draft Dodging Bill Clinton will be on the front line so he can
>prove his manhood.
Just like Draft Dodging Dick Chaney and Dan Quayle did during the Persian\
Gulf war.
>>>33. There will always be poor people.
>>
>> Unfortunately, true.
>
> But there will be less if we give them a "Hand Up" not a "Hand
>Out"--Jack Kemp Rep National Convention also plagurized by Clinton in his
>"acceptance speech"
Except that Clinton explained HOW to accomplish this.
Alex
-->Conservatism is for those who fail to understand reality<--
Nils Nieuwejaar
> But there will be less if we give them a "Hand Up" not a "Hand
>Out"--Jack Kemp Rep National Convention also plagurized by Clinton in his
>"acceptance speech"
Actually, Jesse Jackson used the same phrase during the 1988 presidential
campaign. I believe, although I don't have any documentation handy to
prove it, that the phrase was first used by FDR. In either case, don't
be too quick to accuse someone of plagiarism without knowing the facts.
(and don't use the word plagurized [sic] until you know how to spell it)
Alyosha Bourgea
I used to think Rush was pathetically laughable.
I no longer think so.
I think he is pathetic, and ugly, and not a laughing matter.
>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>
> 1. The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of
> the Soviet Union.
Even when it was a political power, this was untrue. The greatest threat
to humanity lies in those humans who are in power, wherever and whoever they
may be.
> 2. The single greatest threat to the free people of the world is
> posed by the Soviet Union.
What does he mean by "free"? Capitalist? The people of the FSU were not
prisoners. They did not consider themselves prisoners.
> 3. Peace does not mean the removal of nuclear weapons.
Nope, but the presence of nuclear weapons is less peaceful than their absence.
Why? Because they are tools of war, and war is by definition not peaceful.
> 4. Peace does not mean the absence of war.
Peace is greater than war. The lack of war does not guarantee peace, but the
presence of war prohibits peace.
> 5. War is not obsolete.
Unfortunately, no. This is a testament to the slow pace of the evolution of
human consciousness.
> 6. Ours is a world governed by the agressive use of force.
yes.
> 8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or
> with the Russian people.
Bullshit. By failing to understand them, we make them the faceless enemy,
who are much easier to destroy. Their propaganda mills do/did the same to
us.
> 9. Americans opposing America is not always courageous. Sometimes
> it is dangerous.
Yes, and sometimes Americans supporting America is dangerous. Nothing is
absolute. Protest is the active exercise of constitutional rights, but more,
it is the practice of democratic action. It is _patriotic_ to disagree.
That's what America is all about. If we go on and on about how we're the
only nation to allow its citizens complete freedom (unlike the FSU) and then
we censor or chide our citizens when they use their freedom to disagree
rather than accept authority's decisions, aren't we being just a bit
hypocritical???
>10. Communism kills.
Life kills, Mr. Limbaugh. So does capitalism, i.e., a drug dealer killing
a former customer who is about to inform on him, in order to protect his
financial security. Control kills, whatever form it may manifest itself in--
authority, money, government, weaponry, et cetera. Communism ain't unique.
>12. Freedom is God-given. It is the natural state to which humans
> yearn.
Fuck God, freedom is human-given. We give ourselves individual freedom,
and if we have an intelligent government, they give us societal freedom.
>13. To the Soviet Union, peace means the absense of opposition.
Believe it or not, the SU, Former or no, does/did not speak with one voice.
>14. To free people, peace means the absense of threat and the
> presence of justice.
Again, I take issue with the "free people" euphemism, especially in light of
number 12. If Limbaugh argues that freedom is God-given, then everyone's
a free person, right? Unless God doesn't love the Soviets...
>15. The peace movement in the United States, whether by accident
> or by design, is pro-Communist.
No. Limbaugh seems to have a tendency to use blanket terms and huge
generalities to classify what he does not understand. The peace movement is
far too large and fragmented to ever be supposed to speak with one voice.
As a peace activist, I can attest from an insider's point of view that there
are Communists in the peace movement, as well as socialists, anarchists,
transcendentalists, Christians, capitalists, and lots of other folks.
The only time the peace movement ever comes together to produce a significant
activity, it is usually quite mainstream, as in a huge organized demonstration
in Washington to protest the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Is legal
protest against nuclear weapons pro-Communist? I think not.
>16. The collective knowledge and wisdom of senior citizens is the
> most valuable, yet untapped, resource our young people have.
Untapped, yes. Most valuable, no.
>20. There IS a god.
This is an undeniable truth of life for Mr. Limbaugh. It is not for me.
There is not, has never been, and never will be any proof for the existence
of a supreme being. It's a matter of belief, not truth.
>21. Abortion is wrong.
Single mothers living in poverty with six starving children is wrong.
>22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.
"To those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say, just watch me."
Rush Limbaugh knows what's best for me? I think not.
Morality is relative, as is everything else.
>23. Evolution cannot explain creation.
Creation cannot explain evolution.
>24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have
> access to the mainstream of society.
Absolute bullshit, possibly the most offensive of Limbaugh's bogus "truths".
Limbaugh insults and ignores what he does not understand or what makes him
uncomfortable. He prefers to wallow in his own illusions. This contention
of his is so repugnant as to almost not be worth the time it takes to respond
to it, but I assure you that even the most attractive woman won't make it
into high-level business or govermental office without the push of feminism.
Ugly men have been making it big for a long time. Feminism isn't about looks,
it isn't about brassieres, it isn't even about job opportunity. Rush doesn't
have the first, crudest inkling of a clue on this matter.
>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.
>26. The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
> Soviet leaders is that he is alive.
The only difference between Rush Limbaugh and George Wallace is that he's
overweight.
>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>28. Despite what they are teaching at the University of Missouri,
> Abraham Lincoln saved this nation.
Debatable. He didn't fight the CW single-handed. He was also a racist,
a waffler, and many other lovely things.
>30. The United States will again go to war.
No doubt.
>31. To more and more people, a victorious United States is a
> sinful United States.
To me, a sinful United States is a victorious United States!!!
>32. This is frightening and ominous.
Rush Limbaugh is frightening and ominous.
>33. There will always be poor people.
Only as long as there is capitalism.
>34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush
> Limbaugh, or any other rich person.
No, it is the fault of the system which Forbes, Reagan, et al take
advantage of.
Dameon D. Welch
>In <69...@cup.portal.com> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>
>>21. Abortion is wrong.
>
>Single mothers living in poverty with six starving children is wrong.
And how did the mother get this way, might I ask? She most likely had
sex with someone without using birth control. It's *HER* fault. When
will you Liberals pull your head out of your ass and realize that
people can and should be responsible for their own actions?
>>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
>
>Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.
How do you figure this?
>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>
>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
But most of them preached facist left-winged ideas.
>>33. There will always be poor people.
>
>Only as long as there is capitalism.
I agree with what Rush says because there are always lazy people who
expect people to do things for them, which is where you leftists
derive your power and mandate from. Capitalism allows people to make
their own mark on their own.
>>34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush
>> Limbaugh, or any other rich person.
>
>No, it is the fault of the system which Forbes, Reagan, et al take
>advantage of.
See above.
--
Dameon D. Welch, NH6TW k...@netcom.com OR dwe...@scuacc.scu.edu
Sophomore CS Major at Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA
--
"Don't be afraid, it's only business." -- Roger Waters
bar...@wkuvx1.bitnet
> In article <1992Nov16...@woods.ulowell.edu> en...@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>>In article <Bxtov...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>>tz1...@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>>>21. Abortion is wrong.
>>> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
>>> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.
>> Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE.
>>The old saying goes here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
>>fire." It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
>>incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose. If a human being
>>in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
>>want your livver out take it out) but human life is just that human life.)
> What if she was already trying to avoid getting pregnant, i.e. like using
> birth control, and it happened anyway?
Sex is for procreation, as he said. Any time you do it, you run the
risk - with or without birth control. You accept the risk by engaging
in it - with or without birth control. You know what you're getting
into.
> -->Conservatism is for those who fail to understand reality<--
And liberalism is for those who fail to accept it. :+)
Alex Kamilewicz
Some would argue that sex is sometimes for the sharing of intimacy between
two people who are very close, and not for procreation. In effect, the idea
of "making love" instead of "making babies."
Alex
Justin C. Hogue
>>24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have
>> access to the mainstream of society.
>Absolute bullshit, possibly the most offensive of Limbaugh's bogus "truths".
>Limbaugh insults and ignores what he does not understand or what makes him
>uncomfortable. He prefers to wallow in his own illusions. This contention
I suppose his "right wing" illusions are worse than the "left wing"
illusions. Education (a very ambiguous one) solves everything. Getting
rid of weapons will rid us of war (unless one guy siezes the moment).
Affirmative action will relieve us of all racism: although ignorant I admit,
many people will blame minorities for their problems, citing that the minority
couldn't compete for the job, but was placed there simply because of their
minority status. This would cause even more hatred.
I, like most people, don't agree with 100% of Rush's (if I may call him
that) ideas, but who agrees with 100% of anybody's? What he thinks you
consider illusion, what you think I consider illusion. Besides, who does
understand the feminist movement? I just thought of it as low esteemed
women. My girlfriend is smarter and more charasmatic than I, and I consider
her "better" than myself, and she didn't have to partake in any Feminism
thing to prove that to me or anybody.
I'm finished now.
--------------------------Jowfus ho...@cs.arizona.edu------------------------
| Before I die I plan to do one of two things: Solve the saw function problem |
| or find a program that works better in COBOL than any other language. Both |
| are impossible. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Pugh
>
>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>
>> access to the mainstream of society.
>
>Absolute bullshit, possibly the most offensive of Limbaugh's bogus "truths".
>Limbaugh insults and ignores what he does not understand or what makes him
>uncomfortable. He prefers to wallow in his own illusions. This contention
>of his is so repugnant as to almost not be worth the time it takes to respond
>to it, but I assure you that even the most attractive woman won't make it
>into high-level business or govermental office without the push of feminism.
>Ugly men have been making it big for a long time.
e.g. RUSH LIMBAUGH !!
>Feminism isn't about looks, it isn't about brassieres, it isn't even about
>job opportunity. Rush doesn't have the first, crudest inkling of a clue on
>this matter.
I think this Rushism is just a manifestation of Rush's emotional/sexual
inadequacies with women. What does mainstream of society mean anyway?
I thought Feminism was established to remove the imbalance of power
between men and ANY woman?
>>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
>
>Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.
Somehow I find it difficult to imagine Rush capable of love. Probably
related to my comment to 24. The only way I can see a woman being
attracted to Rush (unless she's a brainless DittoHead) is for his
money. How any woman could contemplate sleeping with such an amorphous
mass of bigotry is beyond me...
David (the AntiRusht)
--
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
David Pugh, UCLA, CA | Hot Dog, Jumping Frog
pu...@math.ucla.edu | Albuquerque - Prefab Sprout
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
James C Spencer
>>22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.
>"To those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say, just watch me."
>Rush Limbaugh knows what's best for me? I think not.
>Morality is relative, as is everything else.
Your statement is an absolute statement, thus it contradicts itself.
--Jim Spencer
Steve Bender
|> >>In article <Bxtov...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
|> >>tz1...@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
|> >>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
|> >>
|> >>>
|> >>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
|> >>>
|> >>>21. Abortion is wrong.
|> >>
|> >> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
|> >> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.
|> >
|> > Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE.
|> >The old saying goes here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
|> >fire." It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
|> >incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose. If a human being
|> >in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
|> >want your livver out take it out) but human life is just that human life.)
|>
|> What if she was already trying to avoid getting pregnant, i.e. like using
|> birth control, and it happened anyway?
How does an unsuccessful attempt at birth-control supercede the baby's right
to life?
Ooooh how inconvenient... Let's just kill it and jump back in the sack.
--
Steve Bender
Evans & Sutherland
(801) 582-5847
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
Alyosha Bourgea
>>In article <Bxtov...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>tz1...@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>>
>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>>
>>> 8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or
>>> with the Russian people.
>>
>> Myopic and xenophobic.
>>
> This is probably dated, reffering to the Soviet States total dominance
>of every aspect of Russian life.
One point that I wish you and Rush would get through your *thick* heads is the
nonequivalence of "Russian" and "Soviet", even when the Soviet Union existed.
It's like equating the United States with North America, and makes about as
much sense.
>>>20. There IS a god.
>>
>> Whether there is a supreme being or not, and what form(s) that being takes, is
>> purely a matter of personal belief. Although since he _could_ have said "There
>> IS a God, and it's the Judeo-Christian God", I suppose I should be happy that
>> Rush at least accepts that Islam, Hinduism, and any other god-based religion
>>is an acceptable belief system.
> One minor point. The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition is also the
>God of the Islamic tradition. Allah, as Moslems call God, is one in the
>same with Yawheh, Jesuus Christ, and The Holy Spirit.
The Moslems don't see it that way, nor do most Christians. There are a lot
of differences between the Q'ran and the Bible. You could argue that the
concept of single male deity is the same, but the mythology surrounding
Allah and Mohammed is vastly different from that of Yahweh and Jesus Christ.
Besides which, it's still a bigoted statement; I'm a Taoist, a pagan, and an
atheist, and I don't take kindly to the imposition of absolute moral and
religious values upon me by others, whether or not I agree with them.
>>>21. Abortion is wrong.
>>
>> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
>> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.
> Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE.
>The old saying goes here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
>fire." It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
>incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose. If a human being
>in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
>want your livver out take it out) but human life is just that human life.)
Rape and incest are not the only instances in which a woman may be pregnant
without intent. Birth control is not infallible.
>>>23. Evolution cannot explain creation.
>>
>> And creation cannot explain evolution.
> Here's one that'll shock ya. According to my religion teacher in
>Catholic H.S., who also happened to be the Biology Teacher, the Catholic Church
>now teaches that the 7 days of creation were more like periods of time, the
>word DAYS was used figuratively to help make the understanding clearer.
>Creation does surprisingly follow the chronological events proven by evolution.
This isn't shocking in the least. Once the creationists realized that everyone
was taking evolution seriously, not just a few heathen weirdos, they changed
their myth to fit the facts. Creationists still teach that humankind is
10,000 years old, in defiance of every bit of empirical evidence that exists.
>>>30. The United States will again go to war.
>>
>> Certainly.
>>
> And the Draft Dodging Bill Clinton will be on the front line so he can
>prove his manhood.
BZZZZT! Thank you for playing. Please try again.
>>>33. There will always be poor people.
>>
>> Unfortunately, true.
Only in a society that is capitalistic (i.e., competitive, where there are
winners and losers).
> But there will be less if we give them a "Hand Up" not a "Hand
>Out"--Jack Kemp Rep National Convention also plagurized by Clinton in his
>"acceptance speech"
Gee, unemployment rose under Reagan. Nice rhetoric. And what's Kemp saying--
government intervention? (shocked gasp) Whatever, it's still an empty phrase
that can be twisted to mean whatever you may want it to mean.
Alyosha Bourgea
Not always. Accidents happen. Birth control isn't always as effective as it
is made out to be. Also, a sexual partner may lie about birth control.
Thomas Zych
>In article <1992Nov17....@wkuvx1.bitnet> bar...@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>> In article <1992Nov16...@woods.ulowell.edu> en...@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>>>>tz1...@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>>>>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>>>>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>
>>>>>>21. Abortion is wrong.
>>
>>>>> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
>>>>> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.
>>
>>>> Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE.
>>>>The old saying goes here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
>>>>fire." It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
>>>>incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose. If a human being
>>>>in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
>>>>want your livver out take it out) but human life is just that human life.)
>>
>>> What if she was already trying to avoid getting pregnant, i.e. like using
>>> birth control, and it happened anyway?
>>
>>Sex is for procreation, as he said. Any time you do it, you run the
>>risk - with or without birth control. You accept the risk by engaging
>>in it - with or without birth control. You know what you're getting
>>into.
>Some would argue that sex is sometimes for the sharing of intimacy between
>two people who are very close, and not for procreation. In effect, the idea
>of "making love" instead of "making babies."
In fact, didn't the Catholic Church a few years ago issue a papal bull (or
whatever they're called) stating that it was permissable for married couples
to have sex for the purpose of 'strengthening the relationship', while
specifically not desiring procreation?
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych tjz2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois |
| tz1...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu | at Urbana-Champaign... |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware Humanitarians. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Alyosha Bourgea
>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <69...@cup.portal.com> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>>>21. Abortion is wrong.
>>
>>Single mothers living in poverty with six starving children is wrong.
>And how did the mother get this way, might I ask? She most likely had
>sex with someone without using birth control. It's *HER* fault. When
>will you Liberals pull your head out of your ass and realize that
>people can and should be responsible for their own actions?
When will you Conservatives stop the flow of vocal diarrhea and realize that
success isn't always a matter of responsibility, but of who has power and how
they use or abuse that power?
>>>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
>>
>>Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.
>How do you figure this?
His show is a stream of vitriol against feminism, liberalism, radicalism,
Democrats, environmentalism, non-Christians, and anything else he doesn't
understand. He demonstrates no love toward anyone but himself.
>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>>
>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>But most of them preached facist left-winged ideas.
HELLO! Remember the coup? Remember Gorbachev getting kidnapped? Remember
the breakup of the Soviet Union? It happened because a RIGHT-wing faction
of the government, that is, the old guard of Brezhnev/Lenin ideology,
opposed Gorbachev's progressivism and willingness to allow state's rights.
Calling Soviet government fascist left-wingers is way too convenient.
>>>33. There will always be poor people.
>>
>>Only as long as there is capitalism.
>I agree with what Rush says because there are always lazy people who
>expect people to do things for them, which is where you leftists
>derive your power and mandate from. Capitalism allows people to make
>their own mark on their own.
Liberals derive their support from those who realize that the Horatio Alger
"bootstrap" myth has little if any basis in reality. Poor people are not
lazy, they are disadvantaged. Minorities are not lazy, they are disadvantaged.
The power base is the property of rich, white, conservative corporations and
politicians. Those who are not in power are kept there, victimized by a
vicious Catch-22 (won't hire you because you're not qualified, you're not
qualified because we won't hire you). The disadvantaged are greater in number
than ever before: today the top 4 percent of the country earn as much as the
bottom 50 percent of the country. Liberalism is designed, among other things,
to give power to those who are denied access to power, so that they are able
Alyosha Bourgea
>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>>>24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have
>>> access to the mainstream of society.
>>Absolute bullshit, possibly the most offensive of Limbaugh's bogus "truths".
>>Limbaugh insults and ignores what he does not understand or what makes him
>>uncomfortable. He prefers to wallow in his own illusions. This contention
> ^^^^^^^^^
> I suppose his "right wing" illusions are worse than the "left wing"
>illusions. Education (a very ambiguous one) solves everything. Getting
>rid of weapons will rid us of war (unless one guy siezes the moment).
>Affirmative action will relieve us of all racism: although ignorant I admit,
>many people will blame minorities for their problems, citing that the minority
>couldn't compete for the job, but was placed there simply because of their
>minority status. This would cause even more hatred.
This is _your_ idea of the "left wing" illusions. Remember that there is no
liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh. Despite all the "liberal media" flap,
there's no liberal talk show host out there telling people "How It Ought To
Be". Limbaugh makes a list of his conservative opinion, masquerading as
undeniable truth. Liberals make no such egotistical contention.
I consider myself a liberal's liberal, more or less. My response to your
list of "left-wing illusions":
--Education will not solve everything, but it is the building block upon which
most future solutions rest, and it is being neglected.
--Getting rid of weapons decreases the possibility of war, but people will
always have violent impulses. We currently have more weapons than we could
ever hope to need, and we currently spend far too much on weapons that are
totally redundant.
--Affirmative action _is_ racism.
> I, like most people, don't agree with 100% of Rush's (if I may call him
>that) ideas, but who agrees with 100% of anybody's? What he thinks you
>consider illusion, what you think I consider illusion. Besides, who does
>understand the feminist movement?
I don't think anyone understands it completely, but certainly the more one
has been involved in it, the more one understands of it. I've not been nearly
as active as women I know, but for a man I think I'm fairly well aware of the
realities of it--certainly more than Mr. Limbaugh.
I just thought of it as low esteemed
>women. My girlfriend is smarter and more charasmatic than I, and I consider
>her "better" than myself, and she didn't have to partake in any Feminism
>thing to prove that to me or anybody.
I think this constitutes an unfortunate lack of self-esteem on your part.
I'm also involved with the men's rights movement, and it's just as sexist
and self-destructive to call a woman "better" than you, or even smarter or
more charismatic. Feminism isn't about proving anything; it isn't about
domination or feminine machismo. Feminism is about improving social
consciousness wrt women, and about improving equal rights for women.
It's not about S&M.
Alyosha Bourgea
>gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
No. It's what I believe, but I'm aware that it is not the only truth. Rush
can believe what he wants, just as long as he doesn't present it as an
"undeniable truth". I would have qualified my statement, but I was responding
to an unqualified statement in kind.
Andrew C. Aiken
answers his telephone:
>HELLO! Remember the coup? Remember Gorbachev getting kidnapped? Remember
>the breakup of the Soviet Union? It happened because a RIGHT-wing faction
>of the government, that is, the old guard of Brezhnev/Lenin ideology,
>opposed Gorbachev's progressivism and willingness to allow state's rights.
>Calling Soviet government fascist left-wingers is way too convenient.
This only goes to show that terms such as "left" and "right" are
relative. Still, to exploit this fact is being disingenuous. In the
American political tradition, Breshnev and Lenin could hardly be considered
conservative. And is it not the conservative who advocates federalism, that
doctrine upon which our country was founded, also called "states rights"?
Andrew AikeN
Michael L. Le Houllier
>In <1992Nov16...@woods.ulowell.edu> en...@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>
>>>In article <Bxtov...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>>tz1...@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>
>
>>God of the Islamic tradition. Allah, as Moslems call God, is one in the
>>same with Yawheh, Jesuus Christ, and The Holy Spirit.
>
>The Moslems don't see it that way, nor do most Christians. There are a lot
>of differences between the Q'ran and the Bible. You could argue that the
>concept of single male deity is the same, but the mythology surrounding
>Allah and Mohammed is vastly different from that of Yahweh and Jesus Christ.
Read the Koran. The Christians and Jews are recognized are "People of
the Book' in Islam. They accept the prophets of Judaism and
Christianity, even Christ, though they don't accept His divinity.
Muhammed saw Islam as a purifying religion to Judaism and Christianity
and they had strayed from the true God, according to the Koran.
>
>Besides which, it's still a bigoted statement; I'm a Taoist, a pagan, and an
>atheist, and I don't take kindly to the imposition of absolute moral and
>religious values upon me by others, whether or not I agree with them.
If you're going to be a Daoist, at least learn to spell it.
>
God bless,
--
Michael Le Houllier * John 3:16 * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili
(m_le...@oz.plymouth.edu.us) * Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3) (15-1-2)
Great job this season girls. Get U MASS Dartmouth back next year!!!!
lisa s anderson
|>
|>>33. There will always be poor people.
|>
|>Only as long as there is capitalism.
|>
This is so ludicrous it's laughable. Do you mean to suggest that if we
eliminated capitalism, we would eliminate poor people? How many people
are starving in all of the non-capitalistic societies throughout the
world? Name one country in which there are no poor people. I see that
the communnist (socialist, actually) pipe dream of "let's dole out
everything equally to all for the good of society" was very successful
in the "former" Soviet Union. Their productivity soared and all of the
people were well-fed and just as happy as clams, right? It's only in the
evil capitalist countries, led of course by the evil personified United
States of America, that the existence of poor people is accepted as a fact
of life. Sarcasm aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be
naive enough to really believe the statement that you made.
-lisa
lisa s anderson
|>
|>>>>33. There will always be poor people.
|>>>
|>>> Unfortunately, true.
|>
|>Only in a society that is capitalistic (i.e., competitive, where there are
|>winners and losers).
|>
Don't you get it yet. Basic human nature is to be competitive. Some people
are more competitive and ambitious than others. Granted some people start
out with the deck stacked in their favor. However, given two people who start
out with the same opportunities and resources, most often one will achieve
more success than the other.
-lisa
Alyosha Bourgea
You're right, "left" and "right" are relative. I interpret "right" as being
conservative, which to me means a desire to maintain the status quo, uphold
tradition, etc., as opposed to "left"/liberal which to me means a desire to
change, experiment, reorganize, etc.
Alyosha Bourgea
>In article <grendel.722135201@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Nov16...@woods.ulowell.edu> en...@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>
>>>>In article <Bxtov...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>>>tz1...@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>>>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>
>>>>>20. There IS a god.
>>
>>> One minor point. The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition is also the
>>>God of the Islamic tradition. Allah, as Moslems call God, is one in the
>>>same with Yawheh, Jesuus Christ, and The Holy Spirit.
>>
>>The Moslems don't see it that way, nor do most Christians. There are a lot
>>of differences between the Q'ran and the Bible. You could argue that the
>>concept of single male deity is the same, but the mythology surrounding
>>Allah and Mohammed is vastly different from that of Yahweh and Jesus Christ.
>Read the Koran. The Christians and Jews are recognized are "People of
>the Book' in Islam. They accept the prophets of Judaism and
>Christianity, even Christ, though they don't accept His divinity.
>Muhammed saw Islam as a purifying religion to Judaism and Christianity
>and they had strayed from the true God, according to the Koran.
My point exactly. Allah is the true god according to the Q'ran, not Yahweh.
The two are not one and the same.
>>
>>Besides which, it's still a bigoted statement; I'm a Taoist, a pagan, and an
>>atheist, and I don't take kindly to the imposition of absolute moral and
>>religious values upon me by others, whether or not I agree with them.
>If you're going to be a Daoist, at least learn to spell it.
>>
"Taoist" is the correct spelling, as in "Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tse. It is
_pronounced_ "Dowist", however.
>God bless,
Fuck you. :)
Steve Shapiro
In article <1992Nov18.0...@news.stolaf.edu>,
kami...@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz) writes...
>Some would argue that sex is sometimes for the sharing of intimacy between
>two people who are very close, and not for procreation. In effect, the idea
>of "making love" instead of "making babies."
Some would argue that this is what sets us apart from the rest of the animals
on this planet. We can CONSCIOUSLY engage in sex for EMOTIONAL reasons rather
than INSTINCT.
Regards,
Steve.
/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve....@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81 *
*******************************************************************/
Alyosha Bourgea
Believe it, babe. I never claimed the communistic system of government works.
All I said was that capitalism creates poverty. Capitalism is _about_ rich
and poor. How do you interpret the word "poor"? I interpret it as "at an
economic or financial disadvantage". In a system of competition, where the
idea is to do better than the other guy, there will always be "the other guy".
Capitalistic structure perpetuates poverty. It is part of the underlying
concept. Now, notice I didn't say that communism, socialism, etc. create
happy clams. People are certainly at a disadvantage under these systems of
government, because they are systems that function better as ideas than as
realities. I do not propose a utopian alternative. All I'm saying is that
if one claims that poverty is inevitable, as Rush does, one should look for
the underlying cause. The underlying cause is a concentration of power.
Capitalism provides for this concentration of power. Today in the United
States, the top four percent of the population make the same amount as the
bottom fifty percent of the population.
Alyosha Bourgea
Look, what we're dealing with in this society is polarization. It's gone way
beyond competition. Wealth perpetuates wealth; poverty perpetuates poverty.
How does this polarization stop? Only if those with wealth and power provide
for those without. This is not being done because of some vague idea that it
is "anti-capitalistic" and therefore sinful. Capitalism, though one of the
more effective economic systems, is not the Gospel solution.
Nathan Engle
>l...@ll.mit.edu (lisa s anderson) writes:
>>gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>|>>33. There will always be poor people.
>>|>Only as long as there is capitalism.
>>This is so ludicrous it's laughable. Do you mean to suggest that if we
>>eliminated capitalism, we would eliminate poor people? ...
[snip]
>>... Sarcasm aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be
>>naive enough to really believe the statement that you made.
>Believe it, babe. I never claimed the communistic system of government works.
>All I said was that capitalism creates poverty.
Ok, if capitalism creates poverty then what creates wealth? Do you
think that people are better served by communism? There's a joke that I
heard on NPR a few years back; I think it was in one of Daniel Shore's
commentaries.
Q: What is the difference between capitalism and communism?
A: In capitalism, man exploits man. (very bad)
In communism, it's the other way around.
--
Nathan Engle Software Juggler
Psychology Department Indiana University
na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Alyosha Bourgea
>gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>l...@ll.mit.edu (lisa s anderson) writes:
>>>gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>>|>>33. There will always be poor people.
>>>|>Only as long as there is capitalism.
>>>This is so ludicrous it's laughable. Do you mean to suggest that if we
>>>eliminated capitalism, we would eliminate poor people? ...
>[snip]
>>>... Sarcasm aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be
>>>naive enough to really believe the statement that you made.
>>Believe it, babe. I never claimed the communistic system of government works.
>>All I said was that capitalism creates poverty.
> Ok, if capitalism creates poverty then what creates wealth? Do you
>think that people are better served by communism? There's a joke that I
No. Capitalism creates both poverty and wealth. Communism creates neither
in theory, but in practice it results in a polarization even faster than
capitalism.
William Crosmun
>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <69...@cup.portal.com> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>>
>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
All Soviet leaders certainly are any one thing. Soviet leaders, and by this I
mean the General Secretaries of the Communist Party, eg. Lenin, Stalin,
Krushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev et. al, are all
1. male
2. white
3. Communist
4. dictators
5. left wing
It's true that people are all different in many ways, but let's not be blinded
to the ways people are the same.
>
>--
>Dameon D. Welch, NH6TW k...@netcom.com OR dwe...@scuacc.scu.edu
> Sophomore CS Major at Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA
>--
> "Don't be afraid, it's only business." -- Roger Waters
William Crosmun
cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com
===============================================================================
Life is a mystery and it's an unsolvable one. You simply live it through, and,
as you draw your last breath you say "What was that all about?"
- Marlon Brando
===============================================================================
"The computer industry is journalists in their 20s standing in awe of
entrepreneurs in their 30s who are hiring salesmen in their 40s and 50s and
paying them in the 60s and 70s to bring their marketing into the 80s."
- public relations wizard Marty Winston
===============================================================================
William Crosmun
>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <69...@cup.portal.com> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>
>Somehow I find it difficult to imagine Rush capable of love. Probably
>related to my comment to 24. The only way I can see a woman being
>attracted to Rush (unless she's a brainless DittoHead) is for his
>money. How any woman could contemplate sleeping with such an amorphous
>mass of bigotry is beyond me...
This is the most offensively sexist thing I've read in a long time. To suggest
that no woman could be attracted to Rush because of the way he looks, and
could only be interested in his money, is a giant step backward toward the
dark ages.
>
>David (the AntiRusht)
Ah. Now I understand.
>
>--
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
> David Pugh, UCLA, CA | Hot Dog, Jumping Frog
> pu...@math.ucla.edu | Albuquerque - Prefab Sprout
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
===============================================================================
William Crosmun
cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com
===============================================================================
"Above all, as the keynote of all Democratic policy, in passing upon any
question, let the controlling aim and ambition be to keep the road open for
private enterprise and personal initiative."
John W. Davis - Democratic candidate for President - 1924
===============================================================================
"I do not want to live under a philanthropy. I do not want to be taken care
of by the government.... We do not want a benevolent government. We want a
free and a just government."
Woodrow Wilson
===============================================================================
Alyosha Bourgea
>In article <1992Nov18.0...@netcom.com> k...@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch) writes:
>>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>>In <69...@cup.portal.com> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>>
>>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>All Soviet leaders certainly are any one thing. Soviet leaders, and by this I
>mean the General Secretaries of the Communist Party, eg. Lenin, Stalin,
>Krushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, Gorbachev et. al, are all
> 1. male
> 2. white
Gee, kind of like our own government?
> 3. Communist
Gee, kind of like our own government is all capitalist?
> 4. dictators
Beg to differ. From the capitalist POV, anyone who doesn't allow for free
trade, free speech, etc. is a dictator, I suppose, but I see a big difference.
Communist does not equal dictator.
> 5. left wing
Not true. Gorbachev was liberal, and he met great resistance within the Soviet
government for his ideas from the old right-wing guard, who eventually
kidnapped him and attempted a coup.
>It's true that people are all different in many ways, but let's not be blinded
>to the ways people are the same.
The first three of your examples of how the Soviet government was all the same
are irrelevant, and the last two are untrue. You haven't made a case.
keba...@memstvx1.memst.edu
(Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
> In <69...@cup.portal.com> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>
> <ad hominem attack deleted>
>
>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>
>> 1. The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of
>> the Soviet Union.
>
> Even when it was a political power, this was untrue. The greatest threat
> to humanity lies in those humans who are in power, wherever and whoever they
> may be.
Certainly you aren't equating a democratic system with an authoritarian
one, are you? Or do you think the recent U.S. election was rigged, and
a moral equivalency does in fact exist ;-}? I'm much happier now that the
former Soviet Union is becoming democratic. If the elements in the FSU
which long for the law-and-order days of Stalin ever regain control of
the government, woe be unto us for cutting the defense budget too deeply
and doing liberal sociology experiments with our military personnel.
>> 2. The single greatest threat to the free people of the world is
>> posed by the Soviet Union.
>
> What does he mean by "free"? Capitalist? The people of the FSU were not
> prisoners. They did not consider themselves prisoners.
Tell that to the Soviets who tried to travel abroad, or emigrate to Israel.
Really, you must not have been paying attention during the Cold War!
>> 3. Peace does not mean the removal of nuclear weapons.
>
> Nope, but the presence of nuclear weapons is less peaceful than their absence.
> Why? Because they are tools of war, and war is by definition not peaceful.
In fact, the US/SU nuclear standoff may well have prevented another World War.
Almost as soon as the standoff ended, the U.S. and its allies felt
unconstrained in reversing the invasion of Kuwait, something which, if
it were to have occurred in the context of the height of the Cold War, would
have been viewed with much greater trepidation. Yugoslavia provides another
example of this effect. The pawns in the Cold War are free to start
something on their own.
(Of course, given what has been recently disclosed about the Cuban missile
crisis, I'm not longing for a return to the old World Order either. But you
can argue that the Cold War prevented the great powers from launching a
major conventional war. Otherwise you'd have to blame the absence of such
a major conflict on the results of the Great Capitalist Imperialist War,
a.k.a. World War II for those of you not in Berkeley, CA.)
>> 4. Peace does not mean the absence of war.
>
> Peace is greater than war. The lack of war does not guarantee peace, but the
> presence of war prohibits peace.
Restating Limbaugh's point, much less succinctly.
>> 5. War is not obsolete.
>
> Unfortunately, no. This is a testament to the slow pace of the evolution of
> human consciousness.
Actually it's a testament to the nature of the system.
(See: The Prisoner's Dilemma in game theory.)
Crime pays in the short term if there's no one enforcing the rules of
good behavior. Or do you think nations are less subject to this than
individuals? At least in this most recent instance, the U.S. subjected
itself to the only pretense of a higher political authority around before
stomping on an upstart regime. It not only looks better when we do, it
lends credibility to the idea of an international law, which is the
only alternative we have to the "law of the jungle". Of course, were
the U.N. to be invested with real (i.e. military) power, where are we to
look for a higher authority to control *its* actions? God knows. :-)
>
>> 6. Ours is a world governed by the agressive use of force.
>
> yes.
See above.
>> 8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or
>> with the Russian people.
>
> Bullshit. By failing to understand them, we make them the faceless enemy,
> who are much easier to destroy. Their propaganda mills do/did the same to
> us.
He should have said, Soviet people, of course. This is dated, but it *was*
true during the Cold War. Until a democratic government is in place,
talking to the powerless masses could not readily influence their leaders,
and talking to the Communist dictators without the threat of force
did little good either. SALT, SALT II, etc. were routinely violated, and all
we could really do is send them a letter. It was indeed, an evil empire,
ruled by evil men, to greater or less degrees of tyranny.
>> 9. Americans opposing America is not always courageous. Sometimes
>> it is dangerous.
>
> Yes, and sometimes Americans supporting America is dangerous. Nothing is
> absolute. Protest is the active exercise of constitutional rights, but more,
> it is the practice of democratic action. It is _patriotic_ to disagree.
> That's what America is all about. If we go on and on about how we're the
> only nation to allow its citizens complete freedom (unlike the FSU) and then
> we censor or chide our citizens when they use their freedom to disagree
> rather than accept authority's decisions, aren't we being just a bit
> hypocritical???
Limbaugh's point is self-evident, and it includes your point, by way
of implication. Put positively, the statements could read:
"Americans opposing America are sometimes courageous, and sometimes
dangerous."
The question is, do we have the wisdom to see which is which?
And do we have the courage to counter anti-Americanism when it is not
fashionable ("P.C.") to do so?
>>10. Communism kills.
>
> Life kills, Mr. Limbaugh. So does capitalism, i.e., a drug dealer killing
> a former customer who is about to inform on him, in order to protect his
> financial security. Control kills, whatever form it may manifest itself in--
> authority, money, government, weaponry, et cetera. Communism ain't unique.
Limbaugh restates and updates Lord Acton. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Capitalism (as it is practiced under a democratic government) separates
economic power from the direct control of the State, thus lessening the
potential for absolute power which occurs when the State is the only
employer and sole provider of goods and services. The separation of
economy and State is at least as much to be desired as the separation of
Church and State. This is one of the prime lessons of Communism.
(BTW, Fascism, in its economic implementation, shares the same flaw; and
others besides... They didn't call it "National Socialism" for nothing!)
>>12. Freedom is God-given. It is the natural state to which humans
>> yearn.
>
> Fuck God, freedom is human-given. We give ourselves individual freedom,
> and if we have an intelligent government, they give us societal freedom.
Free will is yours by birth. Governments are instituted to limit and
channel your free will, so that you don't infringe the rights of others,
and they don't infringe yours. Too much government is the problem, but
too little government is no solution.
(God language is a little too strong for some people, evidently. But don't
worry, God's going to kill atheists, too.
We'll all find out whether "Fuck God" was a stupid statement. And anyway,
I thought Venus was a goddess.)
>>13. To the Soviet Union, peace means the absence of opposition.
>
> Believe it or not, the SU, Former or no, does/did not speak with one voice.
>
But when it didn't, it used to whisper. Limbaugh's referring to the
Soviet government. Remember when Aeroflot's planes never crashed?
>>14. To free people, peace means the absense of threat and the
>> presence of justice.
>
> Again, I take issue with the "free people" euphemism, especially in light of
> number 12. If Limbaugh argues that freedom is God-given, then everyone's
> a free person, right? Unless God doesn't love the Soviets...
The ""free people" euphemism"? Evidently couldn't argue the *content*.
>>15. The peace movement in the United States, whether by accident
>> or by design, is pro-Communist.
>
> No. Limbaugh seems to have a tendency to use blanket terms and huge
> generalities to classify what he does not understand. The peace movement is
> far too large and fragmented to ever be supposed to speak with one voice.
> As a peace activist, I can attest from an insider's point of view that there
> are Communists in the peace movement, as well as socialists, anarchists,
> transcendentalists, Christians, capitalists, and lots of other folks.
> The only time the peace movement ever comes together to produce a significant
> activity, it is usually quite mainstream, as in a huge organized demonstration
> in Washington to protest the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Is legal
> protest against nuclear weapons pro-Communist? I think not.
Unilateral disarmament wouldn't have made the Soviet Union go away.
Neither would the "nuclear freeze". Reagan's defense spending made
the Soviet Union go away. It couldn't keep up.
(His rhetoric helped too. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!")
>>16. The collective knowledge and wisdom of senior citizens is the
>> most valuable, yet untapped, resource our young people have.
>
> Untapped, yes. Most valuable, no.
Most valuable untapped resource, yes.
>>20. There IS a god.
>
> This is an undeniable truth of life for Mr. Limbaugh. It is not for me.
> There is not, has never been, and never will be any proof for the existence
> of a supreme being. It's a matter of belief, not truth.
Mr. Limbaugh's in-your-face theological assertions did bother you,
didn't they?
>>21. Abortion is wrong.
>
> Single mothers living in poverty with six starving children is wrong.
Birth control is NOT wrong. Abortion IS a conflict between the basic
rights of two individuals. How you choose to settle this conflict
determines whether you wish to deny the mother's rights, or the baby's.
And when.
(It IS a baby in the mother's body by the end of gestation, whether you
like it or not. And the single-celled embryo is NOT a baby, any more than
an acorn is an oak tree. <Thought I'd piss everybody off for a change.>)
>>22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.
>
> "To those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say, just watch me."
> Rush Limbaugh knows what's best for me? I think not.
>
> Morality is relative, as is everything else.
"If morality is relative, I'd hate to meet your relatives."
They'd probably argue that murder isn't morally wrong as they're revving up
the chainsaw.
>>23. Evolution cannot explain creation.
>
> Creation cannot explain evolution.
You're both wrong :-).
>>24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have
>> access to the mainstream of society.
>
> Absolute bullshit, possibly the most offensive of Limbaugh's bogus "truths".
> Limbaugh insults and ignores what he does not understand or what makes him
> uncomfortable. He prefers to wallow in his own illusions. This contention
> of his is so repugnant as to almost not be worth the time it takes to respond
> to it, but I assure you that even the most attractive woman won't make it
> into high-level business or govermental office without the push of feminism.
> Ugly men have been making it big for a long time. <etc.>
So have ugly women, but they've had to be born monarchs.
<<Zing!>>
"It's a joke, son."--Foghorn Leghorn
>>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
>
> Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.
I'm not so sure about this one myself. But go ask Woody Allen.
>>26. The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
>> Soviet leaders is that he is alive.
>
> The only difference between Rush Limbaugh and George Wallace is that he's
> overweight.
The only difference between the above and humor is... well...
The only difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton hasn't been
voted out. Yet. <Subtle irony>
>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>
> Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>
The only difference between someone who says the above and a Soviet
leader is... they're not Communist. The Soviet leader, I mean.
>>28. Despite what they are teaching at the University of Missouri,
>> Abraham Lincoln saved this nation.
>
> Debatable. He didn't fight the CW single-handed. He was also a racist,
> a waffler, and many other lovely things.
Despite Clinton's (and others) attempts at comparison, I'm not living in
the Confederate States Of America.
>>30. The United States will again go to war.
>
> No doubt.
>
>>31. To more and more people, a victorious United States is a
>> sinful United States.
>
> To me, a sinful United States is a victorious United States!!!
Guess what! You're one of THEM! (No surprise.)
>>32. This is frightening and ominous.
>
> Rush Limbaugh is frightening and ominous.
Only to one of THEM! (Again, no surprise.)
But what do you want to DO about it?
>>33. There will always be poor people.
>
> Only as long as there is capitalism.
>
>>34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush
>> Limbaugh, or any other rich person.
>
> No, it is the fault of the system which Forbes, Reagan, et al take
> advantage of.
>
A Communist. Q.E.D. (No wonder they thought there was nothing wrong
in the "worker's paradise." Say hi to Fidel for me!)
--
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. *
* \' KEBA...@memstvx1.memst.edu *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,7...@compuserve.com**********************
"If nobody said anything unless he knew what he was talking about,
a ghastly hush would descend upon the Earth."--Sir Alan Herbert
Andy Soucy
rush may appear to be one sided at times,,,,ok a lot of times,but
all he is trying to do is to balance to scale (the liberal media
scale) His point of his shows is to make us think for our selves
not believe the propaganda they want to believe.whether its rep.or
dem. they want us to believe there side and not the other.
bulllllhocky I say .
the issue is , is it right or is it wrong .who will benifit.
Is it right to put thousands of people out of work and put them on
welfare because of a bird or a fish that can relocate on their own.?
we all pay in the llong run.....
--
Andy Soucy - via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
UUCP: - ...tarpit!tous!business!166!Andy.Soucy
ARPA: - Andy....@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org
max...@deep-13.gizmo.com
> It appears to me that some of you missed the boat or fell off....
> Is it right to put thousands of people out of work and put them on
> welfare because of a bird or a fish that can relocate on their own.?
without-comment.max
David Steinberg
(Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Nov18.0...@netcom.com> k...@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch) writes:
>
>>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>
>>But most of them preached facist left-winged ideas.
>
>HELLO! Remember the coup? Remember Gorbachev getting kidnapped? Remember
>the breakup of the Soviet Union? It happened because a RIGHT-wing faction
>of the government, that is, the old guard of Brezhnev/Lenin ideology,
>opposed Gorbachev's progressivism and willingness to allow state's rights.
>Calling Soviet government fascist left-wingers is way too convenient.
Actually, as I recall, they weren't exactly thrilled about Gorby's
free market experiments. So are you saying that a conservative is
someone who disliked the free market. What an odd and convenient
definition; e.g. right wing= bad guys.
Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way
David> In article <grendel.722136033@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu
David> (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Nov18.0...@netcom.com> k...@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch) writes:
>
>>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>
>>But most of them preached facist left-winged ideas.
>
>HELLO! Remember the coup? Remember Gorbachev getting kidnapped? Remember
>the breakup of the Soviet Union? It happened because a RIGHT-wing faction
>of the government, that is, the old guard of Brezhnev/Lenin ideology,
>opposed Gorbachev's progressivism and willingness to allow state's rights.
>Calling Soviet government fascist left-wingers is way too convenient.
David> Actually, as I recall, they weren't exactly thrilled about Gorby's
David> free market experiments. So are you saying that a conservative is
David> someone who disliked the free market. What an odd and convenient
David> definition; e.g. right wing= bad guys.
Gosh, fellers. Have you forgotten Rush's problems with historians (and
dictionaries) and their definitions of the adjective "conservative"?
Strangely enough, Rush corrected the terms to equate conservative = good
and liberal = bad. It all came clear with Rush's Gorbasms. Where were you
guys?
Part of the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservatism's
indoctrination exam, and you guys would flunk! Some Dittobrains you've
turned out to be. No jackboots will be issued to you until you get this
straight.
L.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
I admit the deed! Tear up the planks! It is the beating of his hideous heart!
David Steinberg
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:02:36 GMT, dste...@nmsu.edu (David
Steinberg) said:
>
>David> Actually, as I recall, they weren't exactly thrilled about Gorby's
>David> free market experiments. So are you saying that a conservative is
>David> someone who disliked the free market. What an odd and convenient
>David> definition; e.g. right wing= bad guys.
>
>Gosh, fellers. Have you forgotten Rush's problems with historians (and
>dictionaries) and their definitions of the adjective "conservative"?
>Strangely enough, Rush corrected the terms to equate conservative = good
>and liberal = bad. It all came clear with Rush's Gorbasms. Where were you
>guys?
>
>Part of the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservatism's
>indoctrination exam, and you guys would flunk! Some Dittobrains you've
>turned out to be. No jackboots will be issued to you until you get this
>straight.
Yes but what if I don't WANT to be a dittohead. I think both
statements are equally dumb. If you say conser.=bad lib=good or
lib=bad conser=good then you just are forcing your opinions upon other
people's ideas. So how again did your post refute mine, or were your
just looking for a gratutious insult?
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
(dste...@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation * film major, when all I really *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay" * lobsterman and cook fish." *
* -Phish * -a letter from Christie Searing *
**********************************************************************
Alyosha Bourgea
>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot>, gre...@camelot.bradley.edu
>(Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>> In <69...@cup.portal.com> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>> <ad hominem attack deleted>
To all the newbies: when in doubt, use a Latin phrase as above. It makes you
look very distinguished. :)
>>
>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>>
>>> 1. The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of
>>> the Soviet Union.
>>
>> Even when it was a political power, this was untrue. The greatest threat
>> to humanity lies in those humans who are in power, wherever and whoever they
>> may be.
>Certainly you aren't equating a democratic system with an authoritarian
>one, are you?
No. They have very little in common. They are, however, both political
systems, and in any political system there is the opportunity for the abuse
of power. I believe it was one Mr. Lincoln who said something to the effect
of "I'd almost rather live in Russia, where at least they are honest in their
greed."
Or do you think the recent U.S. election was rigged, and
>a moral equivalency does in fact exist ;-}?
No.
I'm much happier now that the
>former Soviet Union is becoming democratic.
Hey, so am I. Democracy is the best system of government yet developed.
If the elements in the FSU
>which long for the law-and-order days of Stalin ever regain control of
>the government, woe be unto us for cutting the defense budget too deeply
>and doing liberal sociology experiments with our military personnel.
If the reactionary elements in the United States which long for the
law-and-order days of WWII and Reagan conservatism ever regain control
of the government, woe be unto us and everyone else in the world who realizes
that stockpiling weapons is counterproductive and dangerous.
>>> 2. The single greatest threat to the free people of the world is
>>> posed by the Soviet Union.
>>
>> What does he mean by "free"? Capitalist? The people of the FSU were not
>> prisoners. They did not consider themselves prisoners.
>Tell that to the Soviets who tried to travel abroad, or emigrate to Israel.
>Really, you must not have been paying attention during the Cold War!
Yes, of course, I've been in a coma for the last forty years. No, actually
I've been quite aware of the realities of the Cold War. And one of the
realities was that a great deal of the Soviet people were quite happy with
the way their government was run. I'd like to know if Limbaugh equates
capitalism with freedom.
>
>>> 3. Peace does not mean the removal of nuclear weapons.
>>
>> Nope, but the presence of nuclear weapons is less peaceful than their absence.
>> Why? Because they are tools of war, and war is by definition not peaceful.
>In fact, the US/SU nuclear standoff may well have prevented another World War.
Ah yes...stockpiling our snowballs prevented war. Sure. "Now we have the
capability to destroy you four times over!" "Oh yeah? Well _now_ we have the
capability to destroy you _six_ times over!" "Oh yeah?..." etc.
>Almost as soon as the standoff ended, the U.S. and its allies felt
>unconstrained in reversing the invasion of Kuwait, something which, if
>it were to have occurred in the context of the height of the Cold War, would
>have been viewed with much greater trepidation.
What are you trying to say? That we shouldn't have invaded Kuwait? Or that
we should have, but wouldn't have if there had been a stockpile? I agree
with the first, but I don't think it had anything to do with the standoff,
present or no.
>major conventional war. Otherwise you'd have to blame the absence of such
>a major conflict on the results of the Great Capitalist Imperialist War,
>a.k.a. World War II for those of you not in Berkeley, CA.)
You're not in Berkeley, and neither am I. Cut the crap.
>>> 8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing an understanding of or
>>> with the Russian people.
>>
>> Bullshit. By failing to understand them, we make them the faceless enemy,
>> who are much easier to destroy. Their propaganda mills do/did the same to
>> us.
>He should have said, Soviet people, of course. This is dated, but it *was*
>true during the Cold War. Until a democratic government is in place,
>talking to the powerless masses could not readily influence their leaders,
>and talking to the Communist dictators without the threat of force
>did little good either. SALT, SALT II, etc. were routinely violated, and all
>we could really do is send them a letter. It was indeed, an evil empire,
>ruled by evil men, to greater or less degrees of tyranny.
"Evil" is the keyword here. It's a propagandistic word. Good versus evil
and black versus white. The Jedi versus the Dark Side. Liberal versus
conservative. Democrat versus Republican. Washington, D.C. versus Moscow.
This is so laughably oversimplistic it's surprising it ever worked, but
I guess people have a powerful need for something to fear.
>>> 9. Americans opposing America is not always courageous. Sometimes
>>> it is dangerous.
>>
>> Yes, and sometimes Americans supporting America is dangerous. Nothing is
>> absolute. Protest is the active exercise of constitutional rights, but more,
>> it is the practice of democratic action. It is _patriotic_ to disagree.
>> That's what America is all about. If we go on and on about how we're the
>> only nation to allow its citizens complete freedom (unlike the FSU) and then
>> we censor or chide our citizens when they use their freedom to disagree
>> rather than accept authority's decisions, aren't we being just a bit
>> hypocritical???
>Limbaugh's point is self-evident, and it includes your point, by way
>of implication. Put positively, the statements could read:
>"Americans opposing America are sometimes courageous, and sometimes
>dangerous."
Interesting, then, that he didn't word it that way. He worded it in a biased
way. Apparently it isn't an undeniable truth that Americans opposing America
is not always dangerous, but it is an undeniable truth that Americans
opposing America is not always courageous. I agree with his point, but it's
a very selective point and it needs to be balanced out in order to make it
viable as an "undeniable truth".
>The question is, do we have the wisdom to see which is which?
>And do we have the courage to counter anti-Americanism when it is not
>fashionable ("P.C.") to do so?
Rhetorical question. And fairly moot point. The only thing I can think of
that would be anti-American would be to attempt to replace the government
with a totalitarian system under which citizens have no voice. Other than
that, any freedom of expression is American, unless it directly endangers
the lives of others. Burning a flag isn't the same as killing a man.
>>>10. Communism kills.
>>
>> Life kills, Mr. Limbaugh. So does capitalism, i.e., a drug dealer killing
>> a former customer who is about to inform on him, in order to protect his
>> financial security. Control kills, whatever form it may manifest itself in--
>> authority, money, government, weaponry, et cetera. Communism ain't unique.
>
>Limbaugh restates and updates Lord Acton. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[blah blah blah]
>others besides... They didn't call it "National Socialism" for nothing!)
Still haven't addressed the point. Limbaugh says communism kills. I say
so what? Machine guns kill. That's an undeniable truth and it means nothing.
>>>12. Freedom is God-given. It is the natural state to which humans
>>> yearn.
>>
>> Fuck God, freedom is human-given. We give ourselves individual freedom,
>> and if we have an intelligent government, they give us societal freedom.
>Free will is yours by birth. Governments are instituted to limit and
>channel your free will, so that you don't infringe the rights of others,
>and they don't infringe yours. Too much government is the problem, but
>too little government is no solution.
You restated my point.
>(God language is a little too strong for some people, evidently. But don't
>worry, God's going to kill atheists, too.
Flip side: we all gonna die, Xtians or otherwise. Hint: I'm not an atheist.
>We'll all find out whether "Fuck God" was a stupid statement. And anyway,
>I thought Venus was a goddess.)
True, but naturally Rush doesn't mention her. Leave that to the Feminazis.
>>>14. To free people, peace means the absense of threat and the
>>> presence of justice.
>>
>> Again, I take issue with the "free people" euphemism, especially in light of
>> number 12. If Limbaugh argues that freedom is God-given, then everyone's
>> a free person, right? Unless God doesn't love the Soviets...
>The ""free people" euphemism"? Evidently couldn't argue the *content*.
Read it again: I did. The "free people" euphemism is at the root of his
assertion. And you avoided my question. I'll restate it. If Limbaugh says
that God provides freedom, then people should be free--does he mean that
God only loves non-Communists? If that's not what he means, then Communists
are as free as you and I, and his statement applies to all people, in which
case it's basically irrelevant.
>>>15. The peace movement in the United States, whether by accident
>>> or by design, is pro-Communist.
>>
>> No. Limbaugh seems to have a tendency to use blanket terms and huge
>> generalities to classify what he does not understand. The peace movement is
>> far too large and fragmented to ever be supposed to speak with one voice.
>> As a peace activist, I can attest from an insider's point of view that there
>> are Communists in the peace movement, as well as socialists, anarchists,
>> transcendentalists, Christians, capitalists, and lots of other folks.
>> The only time the peace movement ever comes together to produce a significant
>> activity, it is usually quite mainstream, as in a huge organized demonstration
>> in Washington to protest the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Is legal
>> protest against nuclear weapons pro-Communist? I think not.
>Unilateral disarmament wouldn't have made the Soviet Union go away.
>Neither would the "nuclear freeze". Reagan's defense spending made
>the Soviet Union go away. It couldn't keep up.
Bullshit. The Soviet Union had its own problems to deal with, and when it
finally crumbled, it wasn't due to military inferiority. BTW, you didn't
address my assertion at all. I'll reassert. The peace movement is far too
large to be pro-anything but peace. It is not pro-Communist. Would you
care to challenge that?
>>>16. The collective knowledge and wisdom of senior citizens is the
>>> most valuable, yet untapped, resource our young people have.
>>
>> Untapped, yes. Most valuable, no.
>Most valuable untapped resource, yes.
How about this: the potential knowledge and wisdom of young people is the
most valuable, yet neglected, resource the world has. It is neglected because
our government does not make education a priority.
>>>20. There IS a god.
>>
>> This is an undeniable truth of life for Mr. Limbaugh. It is not for me.
>> There is not, has never been, and never will be any proof for the existence
>> of a supreme being. It's a matter of belief, not truth.
>Mr. Limbaugh's in-your-face theological assertions did bother you,
>didn't they?
Yes, they do. I'm hep to the fact that my beliefs don't apply to everyone.
I respect other points of view. I may argue them if I think they're
ridiculous, but I don't claim that my spiritual bent is the One True Way.
How can Limbaugh claim that the existence of a supreme being is an undeniable
truth? I'd like to see some reasoning behind that claim.
>>>21. Abortion is wrong.
>>
>> Single mothers living in poverty with six starving children is wrong.
>Birth control is NOT wrong.
That's not the issue.
Abortion IS a conflict between the basic
>rights of two individuals.
Yes: the mother and the government.
>(It IS a baby in the mother's body by the end of gestation, whether you
>like it or not. And the single-celled embryo is NOT a baby, any more than
>an acorn is an oak tree. <Thought I'd piss everybody off for a change.>)
:) No, sir, it's not a baby. Yes, it is alive. But it is an embryotic
organism until it leaves the womb and begins to breathe air instead of fluid.
That's technical stuff and it really doesn't address the issue, which is:
is it okay to end one life for the sake of another? I believe it is, and
I believe the welfare of a complex, functioning, conceptualizing member of
society is more important than that of an organism that has barely begun
consciousness.
>>>22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.
>>
>> "To those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say, just watch me."
>> Rush Limbaugh knows what's best for me? I think not.
>>
>> Morality is relative, as is everything else.
>"If morality is relative, I'd hate to meet your relatives."
>They'd probably argue that murder isn't morally wrong as they're revving up
>the chainsaw.
If anybody did that, I'd try my damnedest to stop them, because *MY* moral
convictions tell me that murder is unacceptable. The vast, vast majority
of people in my society also believe this, and we have passed laws to make
murder punishable because doing so benefits our society. There are also
some moral convictions that I hold that are not acceptable to the majority
of people in this society, and I risk prosecution if I am caught following
them. Does that mean I am wrong? No, only that I am in the minority.
>>>24. Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have
>>> access to the mainstream of society.
>>
>> Absolute bullshit, possibly the most offensive of Limbaugh's bogus "truths".
>> Limbaugh insults and ignores what he does not understand or what makes him
>> uncomfortable. He prefers to wallow in his own illusions. This contention
>> of his is so repugnant as to almost not be worth the time it takes to respond
>> to it, but I assure you that even the most attractive woman won't make it
>> into high-level business or govermental office without the push of feminism.
>> Ugly men have been making it big for a long time. <etc.>
>So have ugly women, but they've had to be born monarchs.
><<Zing!>>
>"It's a joke, son."--Foghorn Leghorn
Ha.
Didn't address my assertion. You do a lot of that, don't you?
>
>>>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.
>>
>> Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.
>I'm not so sure about this one myself. But go ask Woody Allen.
Ha.
Do you plan on being relevant any time soon?
>>>26. The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
>>> Soviet leaders is that he is alive.
>>
>> The only difference between Rush Limbaugh and George Wallace is that he's
>> overweight.
>The only difference between the above and humor is... well...
It wasn't humor. Note the lack of smiley. I was countering Limbaugh's
gross oversimplification with a gross oversimplification of my own.
>The only difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton hasn't been
>voted out. Yet. <Subtle irony>
Ha. Yet again. Boy oh boy, was that irony subtle as all get out.
>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.
>>
>> Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>>
>The only difference between someone who says the above and a Soviet
>leader is... they're not Communist. The Soviet leader, I mean.
Gee, was this more of your hecka-subtle irony? Whoosh, it went right over
my head. Let's analyze, shall we? It appears that you're saying that a
Soviet leader is not Communist, and I am. Why do you say this? Because
I assert that Soviet leaders vary in ideology. Now comes the hard part.
How does asserting that members of a government have different ideologies
make me a Communist? I have to admit, I'm stumped. Must be more of that
juicy, succulent irony.
>>>28. Despite what they are teaching at the University of Missouri,
>>> Abraham Lincoln saved this nation.
>>
>> Debatable. He didn't fight the CW single-handed. He was also a racist,
>> a waffler, and many other lovely things.
>Despite Clinton's (and others) attempts at comparison, I'm not living in
>the Confederate States Of America.
Really? Neither am I. Bully for us.
That doesn't change the fact that Lincoln, who was basically a decent Joe,
wasn't singlehandedly responsible for the fate of the CW.
>>>30. The United States will again go to war.
>>
>> No doubt.
>>
>>>31. To more and more people, a victorious United States is a
>>> sinful United States.
>>
>> To me, a sinful United States is a victorious United States!!!
>Guess what! You're one of THEM! (No surprise.)
Yup. I'm one of those atheistic Communistic left-handed pinko pondscum suckers
who likes to sodomize puppies. Like to come sacrifice a goat to the God of
Nothingness? (VERY, VERY SUBTLE IRONY SOMEWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH.)
>>>32. This is frightening and ominous.
>>
>> Rush Limbaugh is frightening and ominous.
>Only to one of THEM! (Again, no surprise.)
>But what do you want to DO about it?
Hurt him. :)
>>>33. There will always be poor people.
>>
>> Only as long as there is capitalism.
>>
>>>34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush
>>> Limbaugh, or any other rich person.
>>
>> No, it is the fault of the system which Forbes, Reagan, et al take
>> advantage of.
>>
>A Communist. Q.E.D. (No wonder they thought there was nothing wrong
>in the "worker's paradise." Say hi to Fidel for me!)
Say hi to Ayn for me!
(Hint: I'm not a Communist. I don't agree with Communist reasoning.
I'm also not an atheist. And yet neither am I a Christian, and neither
do I believe that Capitalism is without flaw. Confusing, isn't it?)
>"If nobody said anything unless he knew what he was talking about,
>a ghastly hush would descend upon the Earth."--Sir Alan Herber
And the Net would be obsolete...
Alyosha Bourgea
Conservative = dedicated to preserving the status quo. In Soviet government,
the free market experiments were a liberal and progressive idea. The coup
was staged by officials who wanted things to go back to "the good old days",
i.e., conservatives. Besides, I don't think Gorby's free market experiments
were the only reason for the coup.
T. Andy Frakes
Yeah, Rush makes it SOUND like he wants everyone to think for
ourselves, but what he ACTUALLY does is present a barrage of
twisted and fragmented 'facts' and then says "Ok, NOW go make your
own decision." Few people have the time to research his sources
and see how badly he twists things around. He'll say something like
"so-and-so said/wrote: [insert fact/partial fact, here] so that means
that he/she believes: [insert any of Rush's opinions/lies cleverly
disguised as facts/obvious deductions, here]." Some of these
deductions about what the person 'believes' are so ludicrous that
you don't even need to check them because it is obvious that no one
in their right mind would actually believe such nonsense.
I don't know why you say that Rush is one-sided. According to him,
HE IS EQUAL TIME. Who's telling the truth? You or Rush?
Rush knows that it is human nature for people to oppose the views
of someone who is really vocal about them. That's how you decide
if you believe someone's views. You try to find an argument against
the views. If you can't, then you'll either make one up (if you're
closed-minded) or accept the idea. This is why Rush doesn't try to
directly impose his ideas upon his listeners. Instead, he presents
others' ideas and makes them sound ludicrous so that you'll
naturally oppose it and end up on Rush's side. This method also
allows him to say "See, I'm not trying to impress any beliefs on
anyone! I just present 'facts' and let you make your own decision!"
He likes using the name 'Slick Willy,' but it's sort of a case of
the pot calling the kettle black. I suggest that people start
calling Rush, "SLICK LIMBY."
-Andy
--
T. Andy Frakes (jol...@ai.mit.edu)
Bradley N Polant
>In article <grendel.722135201@camelot> gre...@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Nov16...@woods.ulowell.edu> en...@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>
>>>>In article <Bxtov...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>>>tz1...@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>>>> sjth...@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths
>>
>>>>>20. There IS a god.
>>
>>> One minor point. The God of the Judeo-Christian tradition is also the
>>>God of the Islamic tradition. Allah, as Moslems call God, is one in the
>>>same with Yawheh, Jesuus Christ, and The Holy Spirit.
>>
>>The Moslems don't see it that way, nor do most Christians. There are a lot
>>of differences between the Q'ran and the Bible. You could argue that the
>>concept of single male deity is the same, but the mythology surrounding
>>Allah and Mohammed is vastly different from that of Yahweh and Jesus Christ.
>
>Read the Koran. The Christians and Jews are recognized are "People of
>the Book' in Islam. They accept the prophets of Judaism and
>Christianity, even Christ, though they don't accept His divinity.
>Muhammed saw Islam as a purifying religion to Judaism and Christianity
>and they had strayed from the true God, according to the Koran.
>>
>>Besides which, it's still a bigoted statement; I'm a Taoist, a pagan, and an
>>atheist, and I don't take kindly to the imposition of absolute moral and
>>religious values upon me by others, whether or not I agree with them.
>
>If you're going to be a Daoist, at least learn to spell it.
actually,i beleave that daoism and taoism are seperate beleifs. I have
Seen both mentioned seperatly and together, as both spellings.
>God bless,
Gesuntite,
David Budd
>>>Besides which, it's still a bigoted statement; I'm a Taoist, a pagan, and an
>>>atheist, and I don't take kindly to the imposition of absolute moral and
>>>religious values upon me by others, whether or not I agree with them.
>>
>>If you're going to be a Daoist, at least learn to spell it.
>
>
>actually,i beleave that daoism and taoism are seperate beleifs. I have
> Seen both mentioned seperatly and together, as both spellings.
>
Well, actually the original poster was completely correct, the
second presumptuous and partially correct, while the third
missed the mark entirely.
Both "dao" and "tao" are acceptable, and mean the same thing. The reason
for tyhe difference is that since the chinese language is one in
idiograms and not an alphabet, the words are transliterated when
written in English. Originally, chinese words were transliterated
according to the methods of Sir Thomas Wade, an English linguist
of the 19th century. When the communists came to power in 1949, a new
system, called han-yu pinyin was created in the hopes of finding
a more accurate way of doing the work. Thus the Wade system
uses "tao" while the pinyin uses "dao."
This is the same for other words like "tofu," which is actually
pronounced more like "dofu," which is the pinyin transliteration,
as Mao Tse-tung becomes Mao Zedong.
But, the two philosophies, tao ism and dao ism are acually
one in the same
--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."