Conference back40::soapbox

    Now that the election is over, I'm waiting for his local minions to
    apply equal-opportunity ad hominems and start referring to him as 
    Fat Boy.
    
    Kit

    	Well he *is* a bit hefty, no?

No problem.  His new wife will teach him aerobics.

    
    RE: .1
    
      'Fat Boy' is already taken.
    
    Paul
    

Note 84.1 by CLUSTA::BINNS 
    
    >Now that the election is over, I'm waiting for his local minions to
    >apply equal-opportunity ad hominems and start referring to him as 
    >Fat Boy.
    
    hmmm. vindictive post-election blues i suspect.

    
    
       Yeah,.....his new wife,.......third wife,.....twenty three years
       old,.....just *love* those "values".
    
    
       Ed
    

Note 84.6 by NEMAIL::BULLOCK 
    
       >Yeah,.....his new wife,.......third wife,.....twenty three years
       >old,.....just *love* those "values".
    
    jealousy is vain. so immature.

Rush Limbo = Totally unboinkable

    
    
        Hey Haag,....I prefer woman over girls,....do you?
    
    
        Ed

Note 84.9 by NEMAIL::BULLOCK
    
     >>   Hey Haag,....I prefer woman over girls,....do you?
    
    no. i prefer women over girls. and 23 years old is certainly a woman.
    why i seen some 16 year olds that...well they weren't women in my book
    but you couldn't tell by the "experience" factor.

	Mighty unusual discussion being done here.  Why, I
remember the libs saying that "personal" life does not 
matter.  We should not worry about what they do in the
privacy of their own homes.
	Now, the best thing libs can do is talk about 
Rush's "private" life.  They don't talk about what Rush
says.  He11, whenever they say something about what he 
say, it is almost always taken from another source.

ME

    Oh, so now you say character *doesn't* matter?  I wonder why.

    Rush, Newt et al are saying character does matter, while blissfully
    picking up trophy partners and talking a good line they refuse to
    follow. 

    
    when did newt or rush ever drive off a bridge?

    How long have they been married to their first and only wives?
    
    If family values includes being faithful to one woman forever, they
    most certainly have no place to yell at Bill, or even Teddy on their
    infidelities.
    
    Driving off the bridge is another matter.

    
    i would wager that even fewer dims would qualify under those 
    conditions, let alone those who molest pages and 16 yr old 
    campaign wohhkers.

>    If family values includes being faithful to one woman forever, they
>    most certainly have no place to yell at Bill, or even Teddy on their
>    infidelities.

WHAT?!?!?!?! OK... Newt and Rush are divorced, but who says it's because
they were cheating on their wife??? Maybe it was the other way around!

How do you KNOW???  wishfull thinking???

/Scott

    /Scott,
    
    repenting and keeping the same wife is to me, more family values than
    those who trash wives of 18 years, because the wouldn't make a good
    looking first lady.
    
    meg

    	re .18
    
    	This isn't "meg up a fact day".  Someone else already questioned
    	the source.  You are not relying on anything conclusive at all.  
    
    	Probably Kinsey was in the telephone line somewhere along the 
    	way...  :^)

    Wordy:
    
    You are unbelievable...you  {and Meowski} attacked those individuals
    calling on Fatboy and his MJK episode, then rail against conservative
    with a far less tainted past...
    
    Gee, when did divorcing a wife become as serious as a married man
    with a single female occupant driving a car off the bridge and only
    saving yourself and waiting 10 hours to report said accident??????? 

    PS:
    
    I hate divorce...no excuse for it, more men should have just "learned
    how to cook!"

    
    RE: .20
    
    Alledgedly driving....
    
    Alledgedly saving...
    
    Alledgedly waiting...

    Joe,
    
    This was reported in Vanity Fair, and the quote about his first wife
    came from Newt's first campaign manager and was used in the WSJ,
    according to Dave shifflet in the RMN.
    
    But he is a "family values" kind of guy isn't he?  defend him at all
    costs, even when he is slimier about his family than the creature he
    was named for.  
    
    meg
    
    meg

| <<< Note 84.14 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>


| when did newt or rush ever drive off a bridge?


	Great diversion. Really. But now maybe you'll address the issue? Like
why to they spout off about character and have such bad ones themselves?


Glen

>    i would wager that even fewer dims would qualify under those 
>    conditions, let alone those who molest pages and 16 yr old 
>    campaign wohhkers.

Let's not forget the Republican congresscritter who was convicted of
statutory rape a few years ago.  Anybody remember his name?

 Crane?

>>    Great diversion. Really. But now maybe you'll address the issue? Like 
>>    why to they spout off about character and have such bad ones themselves?
    
    Glen:
    
    That's the difference.  Rush never claimed to have character where the
    democrats tell you they have character and compassion.  At least 
    Rush isn't disingenuous.
    
    -Jack

    This would really be funny if it weren't so unbelievable.  Meg, I've
    pointed out before that Newt is NOT the darling of the press or media
    here in Georgia.  If Ben Jones had this information (even if it
    WEREN'T close to being true) Jones would have used it......it was a nasty
    campaign.
    
    It's amazing how quiet Newt's former wife has been around the media
    here in Georgia; perhaps because it might be a little easier to verify
    the accuracy of her claims???  Theirs was a messy divorce, no doubt
    about it and New's opponents right here in Georgia would have used 
    this stuff if they could have.  His democratic opponents have tried
    everything including gerrymandering his old district to try and unseat
    him.
    
    Meg used an analogy about Newt dumping his former wife  because
    she's not attractive enough to be first lady????  This reads like
    something out of pulp fiction :-)  Newt definitely is an amititious
    man, but I doubt he dreamed he'd move this far into the national spot-
    light 14 years ago.  Truth being stranger than fiction, maybe Newt's
    ex is more than a little miffed that she isn't going to share in the
    spotlight now :-)
    
    Newt may not have been a prince of a hubby, but there's nothing to
    indicate he has a tom-cat streak like the dude sitting in the WH now
    :-)
    
    

I heard an Atlanta political cartoonist on NPR this morning.  Apparently Newt
got upset at a cartoon this guy did alluding to the hospital incident.  He
doesn't allow reporters from this paper into his news conferences.

    
    
    
     Haag,.....you know what I mean.
    
    
    
     Ed
    

    
    Glen, its a question of proportion. Who among us is without
    sin? Clearly, very few. Yeah, Newt and rush weren't always
    choirboys. if they were, Dems would no doubt be railing at
    their "lack of life experience". 
    
    Somehow, its reassuring to see feet of clay on these guys,
    since it does take the wind out of those Fundamentalist sails
    of theirs.
    
    Anyway I don't think its a diversion to weigh the sins of Rush
    or Newt against those of prominent Dems.
    

| <<< Note 84.28 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>



| Truth being stranger than fiction, maybe Newt's ex is more than a little 
| miffed that she isn't going to share in the spotlight now :-)

	But why are things like this not even considered when it comes to dems? 

| <<< Note 84.31 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>


| Glen, its a question of proportion. Who among us is without sin? 

	ME! You know, Judge Komar. :-)

| Clearly, very few. Yeah, Newt and rush weren't always choirboys. if they were,
| Dems would no doubt be railing at their "lack of life experience".

	Everyone railroads... no one works together....

| Somehow, its reassuring to see feet of clay on these guys, since it does take 
| the wind out of those Fundamentalist sails of theirs.

	But kind of throws a hypocritical wind into their sails.....

| Anyway I don't think its a diversion to weigh the sins of Rush or Newt against
| those of prominent Dems.

	It is when you think the dems did something wrong, and you compare the
repubs to them, but say nothing about them cleaning up their act.

    Anent .20: And you guys, Ron, did the attacking.  Now the shoe's on the
    other foot.  Why can't you see that?
    
    And where's your sense of personal responsibility?  If it's the single
    mother's responsibility to get off welfare, surely it was Mary Jo's
    responsibility to get out of the car herself.  Ted did it, and he has a
    bad back and you say he was drunk to boot...

    Wordy:
    
    Why do you think the penalty for 1st degree murder is different than
    the penalty for jay walking?
    
    I agree with you, that as examples of true virtue Newt and Rush aren't,
    but they are not in the same league as Fatboy.
    
    And Wordy, why is it that character/family values is so important when
    it comes to conservatives and republicans but when it comes to Clinton
    or Fatboy character and family values do not matter?

    Why did you think character was so important when Bill Clinton was
    running for president, but when it comes to Newt and his ilk character
    and family values do not matter?

    
    
    Cause the Repubs are in power and the limo-libs gotta blast
    someone/something else besides their ineptitude
    

    The "character issue" is a Trojan horse. Both sides use it as a weapon
    to bludgeon those with whom they disagree on *political* issues. This
    is why each side is so quick to overlook the character flaws in those
    with whom they agree, and so harsh on those they with whom they disagree.
    
    The tragedy is that this over-emphasis on personal foibles and
    character flaws outweighs and overshadowns the proper emphasis on the
    politicians' policies and their effectiveness in carrying out their
    stated policies.
    
    Do not take this to mean that I do not believe politicians should be
    judged in part on "character", only that this is far less important
    than their political agendas, and far too (and too selectively)
    emphasized in the current climate.
    
    Kit

	The Trojan Horse was the repub contract. Now that they are inside, they
are attacking. But it seems they're doing more to attack themselves than the
dems. Maybe Newt farted while he was in the horse or sumpin...

    Gee...I have yet to hear these guys attacking each other.  Where are
    you hearing this?
    
    -Jack

Yesterday RAH mentioned that the 65 year old lobster wasn't going to be eaten
(in TTLT or News Briefs - I forget). Rush spoke of this today.

Spike, the lobstah in question, is a guest in a holding tank at a seafood
resto in Kaliph. Mary Tyler Moore offered $1K to buy him so that she could
return him to his natural habitat in the No. Atlantic, saying she could
sense that he (Spike) "must be thinking about it" (his natural hab.) as he
sits there on the floor of that tank.

Rush, remarking that Spike, like all lobsters, lacking a central nervous
system like vertebrates, prolly isn't "thinking" about much of anything.

Rush has offered the restauraneur $2K for the bug. Says he'll put him in
his ceegar humidor.

:^)

re: .-1

Didn't realize RAH had already provided an update in News Briefs.

    
    the restaurant is in Santa Monica, also the resto ranteur
    made it very plain that a senior level lobsta such as Spike
    would be pretty tough. 

    wal, if mtm gets her way and they dump spike back in the nawth atlantic
    all's gonna happen is some mainer lobst'rah who's less in tune with the
    vibrations of spike's central nervous system is gonna pull ol' spike up
    and feed him to the fam'ly.

    
    
    and no one will be the wiser... or sadder... or poorer...
    

    I think a quote from Nancy Moser is in order in regards to the
    character issue:
    
    "Characters live to be noticed.  People with character notice how they
    live."
    
    As RAH said, none of us live perfect lives, therefore we all will have
    skeletons in our closets, some with larger skeletons than others.
    
    There needs to be some minimum standard as to what the country needs to 
    see in a leader.
    
    As of today, I don't see Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich,
    Jesse Helms or Marion Barry meeting the "minimum" standards for
    character in my book.

      This is a really disproportionate conversation.
    
      The main impact Rush Limbaugh has on people is the ideas that
      he communicates.  Given that, I would hope that at least some
      dialogue would be relevent to the content of that which he
      communicates accross the airways.
    
      As far as morality is concerned, the religious right scares me!
      I have gone from liberal to conservative so far as political
      ideology is concerned save for I am more dovish than your stereo-
      typical conservative and I am appalled by the religious right.
      (As a sidenote, if anyone passed out any campaign/political
      literature in a church I was attending, I would walk out on the
      spot.)  To me, the conservatives are like the pharisees of old.
      They talk about righteoussness, but are they?  The pharisees 
      could talk hours on righteouss living - and bump off a few prophets
      as they did so!
    
      Back to Rush.  Ideologically, he has far more going for him than
      the liberal trash I hear and I prefer to EMPHASIZE any conversation
      about a communicator to be about that which he communicates.
    
                                                     Tony

                   Limbaugh's Shows Refuse to Air GATT Opponents' Ads
                                By HOWARD KURTZ
                              The Washington Post
                          Copied w/o permission from
                            Manchester Union Leader
                              Sunday  20-Nov-1994

     Rush Limbaugh is coming under a bit of conservative fire. Two
     prominent figures on the right, Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly,
     have made ads opposing the GATT world trade treaty. But Limbaugh's
     radio and television shows have refused to run the spots, and the
     anti-GATT forces say it may be for political reasons. Limbaugh is a
     committed free-trader.

     The Limbaugh television show had accepted an $85,000 buy from
     Schlafly's Eagle Forum, but management changed its mind just before
     the ads were to start airing Monday and is returning the money.

     No one from the television show could provide an explanation, but
     Stuart Krane of EFM Media, which handles Limbaugh's radio show, said
     the radio spots were rejected because the show is sold out for this
     year and only occasionally carries advocacy ads. He said it avoids ads
     urging listeners to call Congress, as Buchanan's does. 

     "We try to depoliticize the advertising," Krane said. "We do Snapple
     iced tea and Australian sheepskin boots." Bay Buchanan, head of the
     group American Cause, said Limbaugh's radio show had rejected more
     than $100,000 in anti-GATT ads featuring the voice of her brother. 

     Said Krane, "Pat Buchanan while he's a good friend of Rush's, is a
     competitor of ours." (Buchanan's syndicated talkshow airs at the same
     time as Limbaugh's.) "If we put his voice on 655 radio stations, those
     stations that have Pat Buchanan in their market would be upset."
     Still, the show refused to accept the ads even with a different
     narrator than Buchanan. "I suspect the issue is not to his favor," Bay
     Buchanan said of Limbaugh. 

     While saying he was not familiar with the specifics of the GATT ads,
     Kit Carson, Limbaugh's chief of staff, said "We don't accept or reject
     advertising based on what someone's political leanings are."

     However, Schlafly called the decision "unusual," especially since she
     had no trouble placing two anti-Clinton ads on the show in recent
     months.

     Schlafly's ad buyer, Jerry Thacker, said he is "very disappointed,"
     because "a conservative luminary like Rush Limbaugh . . . has
     positioned himself as someone who believes in the free exchange of
     ideas. But in this particular case he is restricting the free
     exchange of ideas by not letting a particular viewpoint have to go
     around a conservative spokesman like Rush Limbaugh to get their
     message out."
         
    

    
    and they claim Rush is an extremist..
    
    see, he's taking shots from the extremities, therefore
    he's just a centrist moderate.

    Maybe the syndicated show may refuse the ads, but possibly the local
    spots may run the ads. G. Gordon Liddy is a strong supporter of GATT, 
    and makes no bones about it, but I have heard the Pat Buchanan anti-
    Gatt ads during his show, on a nealry daily if not hourly basis. 
    
    I dunno if the refusal to run the anti-Gatt ads is Rush's decision, or
    that of ABC or whoever pays his quite generous salary. 
    
    I know that Rush really gets upset if some anti-Gatt crusader manages
    to sneak past Bo Snerdley, his call screener. That's about the closest
    I've heard him come to losing his temper and going ballistic.
    
     

    What is there about GATT that causes such a vehement split among
    conservatives?  I haven't been following the Limbaugh show much...
    but one of the few times I did listen, some anti-GATT person
    "sneaked through" and Rush did indeed get pretty bent.
    
    I wish these talk shows wouldn't use "call screeners".  It gives
    all of them a biased, rigged look-and-feel that detracts from at
    least some of their credibility.  Why can't these talkmeisters
    defend their viewpoints from anyone other than their fawning fans
    (whether or not I agree with them...)?
    
    Chris

    
    rush says he screens to get the disagreeing callers. 
    
    are you saying that rush is lying?

    I don't necessarily think he's any more incapable of lying than
    the rest of us, but I was referring more to talk show hosts in
    general, since I don't listen to Rush's show that often.  You
    hear very few callers that disagree with the host, and very few
    that don't spend the first fifteen seconds or so gushing about
    how wonderful the host is, and so on.
    
    Does Rush get very many disagreeing callers?  I've had more
    opportunity to watch his TV show, which unfortunately doesn't
    do call-in.
    
    Chris

    {No screen scenario}
    
    Hello caller, you're on the air!
    
    "YA RUSH, YOU FAT WIND BAG CHEEZY BASTA<click...errrrrrrrr>"
    
    Well, Time for a commercial.  [fade to snapple music]

    
    Rush places people who disagree with him at the top of his call-waiting
    list.  He finds it more interesting for himself and his audience to
    talk with those in disagreement.  He is consistently gentle and kind to
    them, treating them with respect.  He usually leaves them speechless
    however.
    
    jeff

  I've never heard his show, but I've heard him debate Phil Donahue, who is
not exactly what you would call an towering intellect. They usually come out
about even each making about the same number of points. 

  If he is leaving opponents speechless then he is either calling people who
are not very good spokesmen for their side or they are laughing so hard they
can no longer form words.

  George

    Answer to what's wrong with GATT?
    
    It's a new world odor kind of thing.  Also US would agree to submit to
    the findings of the World Trade Organizaion.  If they are anything like
    the UN, they will take all our money and not let us sell anything to
    anybody else, because the US sucks.  Only in the WTO, we will have no
    "veto" power like we do in the UN.
    
    So, some of us who happen to LIKE the US would oppose submitting our
    businesses to the whims of foreign powers.
    
    I know, it's silly of us.

    
    you're wrong meowski...still.  rush doesn't call people, people call
    him.  there apparantly aren't any good spokesmen on the left or they
    would have someone on the air by now.  spielberg and the white house
    are trying to find someone to challenge rush.  i won't hold my breath.
    the left position is basically indefensible.  that's why rush can't be
    effectively countered.
    
    jeff

    
    
    Give him a call George, being the intellectual giant that you are, it
    shouldn't take you long to make mince meat of him. :')

    I now need to get up from the floor and resume my position on the
    chair.....  8*)
    
    
    
    TOOOOOOOO FUNNNNNNNY
    
    
    Rick

RE                      <<< Note 84.58 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

>    you're wrong meowski...still.  rush doesn't call people, people call
>    him.  there apparently aren't any good spokesmen on the left or they
>    would have someone on the air by now.  

  Not necessarily. Political talk show hosts have been using the same gimmicks
for years. Sure he may put opponents on the top of the call waiting list but
does he put the better ones who can beat him up in a debate or are they
screened out? And when someone does start beating him up are they allowed
to continue talking or do they get the bums rush?

  As I said, when he debates Phil Donahou in a neutral forum they come out
about even. Are you saying that Donahou is the best liberal spokesman around? 

  George

    
    I doubt Donahue can match Rush under any circumstances or on any topic. 
    you first have to get past his lisp.
    
    jeff

    >I doubt Donahue can match Rush under any circumstances or on any topic. 
    >you first have to get past his lisp.
    
    donahue is one of those left wing tee vee pretty boy whacko's. his
    debating skills are pratically non-existent. his role is to get others
    to talk about themselves. hardly serious credentials for any debating
    team.

    >> So, some of us who happen to LIKE the US would oppose submitting our
    >> businesses to the whims of foreign powers.
    
    That seems to be the impression that many conservatives have, and
    from what I've heard, those are reasonable objections.  So the question
    is, why is there any dissension at all among conservatives on this?
    A more pointed question for this topic might be: why does Rush like
    GATT, and how does he dismiss the sovereignty issues and other
    potential problems with it?
    
    Chris

                      <<< Note 84.58 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

    
>    would have someone on the air by now.  spielberg and the white house
>    are trying to find someone to challenge rush.  i won't hold my breath.
>    the left position is basically indefensible.  that's why rush can't be
>    effectively countered.
    
That's a crock. Talk radio is now and always has been the voice of the 
disenfranchised, which for the past 60 years has been the conservatives. 
There aren't any left-leaning talk shows with a following like Rush's 
because we haven't been on the political outs. But now we are - or at least 
we're on the verge of being on the outs,  if the repubs don't blow it. And 
if that happens, I can tell you Rush will run for office, because he won't 
have much of a job on radio. And slowly but surely a liberal talk radio 
show will grow to prominence, just like Rush's. And president Newt will be 
setting up a white house talk show.

RE           <<< Note 84.64 by 35272::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    donahue is one of those left wing tee vee pretty boy whacko's. his
>    debating skills are pratically non-existent. his role is to get others
>    to talk about themselves. hardly serious credentials for any debating
>    team.

  Exactly my point. Yet when he and Rush debate in a neutral forum they come
out about even.

  So if he can't even beat Donahou in a fair debate, how good can he be?

  Rush would be easy to beat in a fair debate. He makes the same mistake every
time I've heard him talk. His slant is to quote the most radical left wing
political ideas then claim that it is main stream liberal thinking. If he
had to go issue for issue with a moderate liberal, he's ideas would crumble
into dust.

  George

                       <<< Note 84.65 by DECWIN::RALTO >>>
                       -< New World "Odor", indeed :-) >-

>    >> So, some of us who happen to LIKE the US would oppose submitting our
>    >> businesses to the whims of foreign powers.
    
>    That seems to be the impression that many conservatives have, and
>    from what I've heard, those are reasonable objections.  So the question

The question you should be asking yourself is WHy do US businesses 
themselve side with GATT almost unanamously? They don't seem too worried 
about submitting "to the whims of foreign powers." That's because they have 
nothing to fear -- and a lot to gain. The only people worrying about GATT 
are the knee-jerk protectionists, isolationists, and 
NWO-conspiricy-believers. The US hold all the economic cards. If WTO gets 
out of hand, we can just pull out and the whole game ends. And everyone 
else in the world knows that.

>>    donahue is one of those left wing tee vee pretty boy whacko's. his
>>    debating skills are pratically non-existent. his role is to get others
>>    to talk about themselves. hardly serious credentials for any debating
>>    team.
>
>  Exactly my point. Yet when he and Rush debate in a neutral forum they come
>out about even.

    donahue's stage is hardly a neutral forum. besides, "breaking even" is
    one person's opinion, yours.
    
>  Rush would be easy to beat in a fair debate. He makes the same mistake every
>time I've heard him talk. His slant is to quote the most radical left wing
>political ideas then claim that it is main stream liberal thinking. If he
>had to go issue for issue with a moderate liberal, he's ideas would crumble
>into dust.
    
    i've heard him take the direct quotes of your boy in the WH and debate
    them with call-in and the auidiance dozens of time. i am glad we agree
    and that slick is, in your words, a radical left wing political
    thinker.

>  Exactly my point. Yet when he and Rush debate in a neutral forum they come
>out about even.
    
    	When was this?  And who decided that they came out even?
    
    	If it is your opinion, given your bias I'd have to assume
    	that Rush thrashed the Don.

>His slant is to quote the most radical left wing
>political ideas then claim that it is main stream liberal thinking. 
    
    	Do we have a P&K topic in this new BOX?

>The only people worrying about GATT are the knee-jerk protectionists,
>isolationists, and NWO-conspiricy-believers.

Tell that to the union leaders who are down at the State House trying to tell
Kennedy that since they supported him in his recent re-election bid, that he
should support them and vote against GATT.

/john

    
    guv moonbeam inveighs regularly against it as well.
    
    

RE           <<< Note 84.69 by 35272::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    donahue's stage is hardly a neutral forum. besides, "breaking even" is
>    one person's opinion, yours.

  The debate I heard was not Donahue's stage. It was someone else's talk
show where they were both guests. The moderator didn't say much, he just
seem to be making sure both Rush and Phil got equal time. Must have been
a short series, I saw them in this format several times.
    
>    i've heard him take the direct quotes of your boy in the WH and debate
>    them with call-in and the auidiance dozens of time. i am glad we agree
>    and that slick is, in your words, a radical left wing political
>    thinker.

  Well you heard them and I didn't but I'll bet all my empty Coke cans that
he quoted Clinton out of context. Clinton is liberal when it comes to health
care and gays in the military but he's not all that liberal on other issues
such as the death penalty.

  George

    	How come nobody else remembers this Rush-Don debate?

Note 84.73 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI 
    
>  Well you heard them and I didn't but I'll bet all my empty Coke cans that
>he quoted Clinton out of context. Clinton is liberal when it comes to health
    
    NYET! wrong again george. rush mostly plays back recordings or tee vee
    film footage so there is no doubt about what was exactly said. please
    re-cylce all your empty coke cans and give the proceeds to your
    favorite charity. you lose.

RE              <<< Note 84.74 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	How come nobody else remembers this Rush-Don debate?

  I don't know, how come liberals never hear his show?

  You guys like your right wing demagoguery unsoiled by balanced opinion,
liberals like to listen to both sides of a debate.

  What else is new?

  George

    New Wife Trivia:
    
    - once divorced
    - has 2 kids at least 10 yrs old
    - put herself through college after divorce,got journalism degree
    - graduated with honors
    - taught aerobics one summer - part time
    - "met" Rush after she sent mail to him on Compuserve asking for
      input for a term paper she was doing on Conservatism
    - she is in her mid-thirties
    - started out as "pen pals" and then dated for over two years before
      they married (She lived in Florida)
    
    Sorry to disappoint those of who who thought he was a cradle robber!
    
    Elizabeth

    As far as where right wingers get their info...I consider myself a
    "ditto-head", but I get my info from a variety of sources. Actually
    I think that I get exposed to alot more liberal media than vice-versa.
    I think that the TV news shows tend to be more left-leaning as well
    as the L.A. Times, TIME magazine etc. which I do read.
    I also listen to drive-time talk radio and you can find me listening to 
    Gloria Allred (feminist attorney) one day, and Rush the next.  I have
    found that more often than not when I do listen to "the other side" it 
    only serves to reinforce my conservative beliefs.
    
    -Elizabeth

    Elizabeth sounds like a media junkie. :-{)>
    
    ...Tom

    If you spent up to 3 hours in your car commuting any given day
    (by the way, did I happen to mention how much I "love" L.A.? - NOT!!)
    you would be channel surfing too looking for something stimulating
    to listen to.
    
    -Elizabeth

    Is there anything stimulating in LA??!!
    
    ...Tom

    
    re: donahue vs. limbaugh
    
    rush was the only guest on the donahue show a couple of years ago,
    and the two of them went at it for an hour.  as i recall, donahue
    staggered rush early with a good shot on the abortion issue, but
    rush smoked him the rest of the way.  pretty close to a rout, imo.
    
    bill

    
    funny, I heard that Dono cleaned Rush's clock..

    
   > funny, I heard that Dono cleaned Rush's clock..
    
    could be i was prejudiced 'cause i think "Dono" is an idjit.
    unlikely, though.
    
    bill

    To complicate the GATT matter further, I just saw a Ralph Nader
    ad in which (if I heard correctly over the holiday noise) he spoke
    out strongly against GATT.
    
    Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan on the same side of an issue.  Not
    to mention Ross Perot, assorted unions, various government officials,
    and others.
    
    On the other side, Business executives, Rush Limbaugh, and... who
    else?  I'll admit I haven't been following along with GATT as well
    as I should be.
    
    Very weird stuff, and strange bedfellows.  Does Rush simply hand-wave
    the sovereignty issues, or does he have some substantive arguments
    regarding them?
    
    Chris

              <<< Note 84.71 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>>The only people worrying about GATT are the knee-jerk protectionists,
>>isolationists, and NWO-conspiricy-believers.

>Tell that to the union leaders who are down at the State House trying to tell
>Kennedy that since they supported him in his recent re-election bid, that he
>should support them and vote against GATT.

I count the union leaders among the knee-jerk protectionists. It makes them 
look good, even if it's not necessarily good policy overall.

Tom

    As Rush has said, the main function of his call screener, Bo
    Snerdley, is to weed out the dull and boring callers. He wants people
    with something useful or interesting to say, or to argue about, not
    some boring monotone whiner or blind follower who just wants to gush
    adoration or just babble on about nothing.
    
    This does keep the show lively, fast-paced and interesting, and
    entertaining - he does admit to being an entertainer as much s a
    conservative commentator. 
    
    I only manage to catch short bits of his show at lunchtime if I go out
    on an errand, and sometimes on the midnight replay which appears on 
    several AM stations across the dial, if I am having another sleepless
    night. The TV show is hardly worth bothering with, as there is only
    about 20 minutes of useful time, and he can only skim the issues. As it
    becomes more popular, the advertising time has expanded and he gets 
    squeezed out.
    
    For some reason, he does appear to avoid the GATT controversy, and
    doesn't want to argue for it or against it. He was very pro-NAFTA, and
    made no bones about it. G. Gordon Liddy is strongly pro-GATT, in spite
    of the anti- ads which appear during breaks. He and Rush generally
    concur on most issues.
    
    On the strong anti- side are Chuck Harder of For The People (WCAP 980)
    (and on various shortwave outlets, 9485 and 7315 being two channels) 
    Ralph Nader, who is frequently on Harder's show, Pat Buchanan, Ross
    Perot, Janice Chegalian (sp?) on WRKO and others. As was stated
    earlier, this issue does make fopr some strange "bedfellows".
    
    
    
                                                                     

    
|	[Rush] does admit to being an entertainer as much as a conservative
|   commentator. 
    
    As much as?  How noble.  He is an entertainer.  Nothing more.  Nothing
    less.
    
    Dittoheads who forget this are as dumb as the libs who actually listen
    to what movie actresses have to say about the family farm crisis.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    I disagree. Rush is a serious commentator.
    
    if Rush says he's merely an entertainer, he's being disingenous,
    like when he refers to himself as a harmless furball.
    
    we all know he's the most dangerous man in America.
    

>    we all know he's the most dangerous man in America.
    
Care to prove that statement?

Bruce

| <<< Note 84.90 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>


| I disagree. Rush is a serious commentator.

	Don't you belong in the joke topic with this one?

| we all know he's the most dangerous man in America.

	Eye of Newt

    
    >Don't you belong in the joke topic with this one?
    
    no. do you listen to him? 
    
    anyway, Rush is the one making the claim. But, if 
    claiming he is, is enough to get us all het up,
    then maybe he is...

    Ted "Fatboy" Kennedy is far more dangerous than either Rush or Newt.
    
    Just ask the Kopechne family...

    
    Somehow I've avoided having a nightmare of attack from Ted or
    Rush.  Can you die of laughter ?
    
    Liddy is another matter - I'd guess not a man to tangle with.
    
      bb

    Just like WWW wrestling, if you take it as 100% gospel, then 
    I have some real good land deals in Cuba...
    
    In his books, Rush emphasizes the point about being an entertainer
    first, then a serious commentator. His favorite activity is bringing
    out the absurdities in which our government excels.
    
    Before he had Klintoon to kick around, he had Desert Storm, and his
    theme was the fictional making of the movie version of "Desert Storm"
    starring himself as General Schwarzkopf, and the rest of the "cast"
    changed from day to day. 
    
    He'll eventually have to find another career path, even Star Trek TNG 
    lasted only seven years... 

	Rush and Newt could easily hurt many people. Just with their words many
things can happen.

    The thing that most liberals hate about Rush and most Conservatives, is
    that the liberal ideology is so easy to discredit.  rush is able to do
    it with a fairly high degree of humor.  that's what drives the libs
    crazy.  first of all he's generally right about the empty-headed
    policies of liberals, and then, he has the audacity to have fun while
    doing it.
    
    I trust that Rush will be just had quick to criticize the Republicans
    if they back away from their Contract.  I will have to wait and see how
    it plays out, but I hope they live up to the majority of their
    policies.  If they do, the country and society will be greatly improved
    and liberal policies will be relegated to the trash bin where they
    belong.
    

    It should be stated that Rush took on Bush and criticized him endlessly
    for his forsaking of the "read my lips" pledge.  He correctly called it
    a Democratic power play aimed at destroying the Bush administration,
    which it eventually did.
    
    Rush has had few kind words to say about certain conservative opponents
    of GATT.  Again, the limolib broadbrushing continues, their most
    effective weapon - propoganda!

    Rushing into a .....SNARF!

                       <<< Note 84.98 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
                        -< It just drives them crazy. >-

>    The thing that most liberals hate about Rush and most Conservatives, is
>    that the liberal ideology is so easy to discredit.  rush is able to do

No. What most liberals hate about Rush and many like conservatives is the 
arrogance and utter worthlessness of "arguments" like:

>    crazy.  first of all he's generally right about the empty-headed
>    policies of liberals, and then, he has the audacity to have fun while
>    doing it.
    

>    No. What most liberals hate about Rush and many like conservatives is
>    the
>    arrogance and utter worthlessness of "arguments" like:
>
>    >    crazy.  first of all he's generally right about the empty-headed
>    >    policies of liberals, and then, he has the audacity to have fun
>    >    while doing it.
    
    Are you implying that liberal policies are NOT empty-headed?
    
    If so, state your sources...

             <<< Note 84.102 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

Are you suggesting that Rush and like conservatives aren't arrogant and 
inane?
    
If so, state your sources...

    
    
    
    Well look at you and you ain't a conservative........
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    rush is sometimes arrogant, often humble.  inane...never.
    
    jeff

    I don't HAVE to post my sources.  I didn't make any claims...

  <<< Note 84.104 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Montanabound, oneof these days" >>>

    
>    Well look at you and you ain't a conservative........
    
I never said that ONLY conservatives were thusly obnoxious... 

    
    
    
    
    Aha, I see then :').
    
    
    Mike

    
    Rush is reporting that the Whitehouse headed by George
    Stephenopolisisisisisisisisis(sp) is on a nationwide
    talent search for a liberal radio talk show host. 

 Marjorie Claprood!

    If they search the entire country for an anti-Rush particle, and come
    up with Marjorie Claprood, that is a _very_ good sign...
    
    -b

    They can look all they want, and even ram one into place on half
    the radio stations in the country, but no one's going to be listening.
    
    Chris

RE:     <<< Note 84.111 by MPGS::MARKEY "They got flannel up 'n' down 'em" >>>

   > If they search the entire country for an anti-Rush particle, and come
   > up with Marjorie Claprood, that is a _very_ good sign...
    
    

   Yep..

Re    <<< Note 84.112 by DECWIN::RALTO "Suffering from p/n writer's block" >>>

>    They can look all they want, and even ram one into place on half
>    the radio stations in the country, but no one's going to be listening.
    
  It's funny. Sometimes we hear that the entire media has a liberal bias.
Then other times we hear that a liberal talk show host would never be
successful.

  When the media has a liberal bias it's not because of ratings. Some sort of
conspiracy I guess.

  When we hear how a liberal talk show host would never last, it's because of
ratings.

  What ever fits to make the argument work,
  George

    
    >What ever fits to make the argument work,
    
    It's usually called "reality"....
    
    
    Hope this helps....
    

Re              <<< Note 84.115 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

>    >What ever fits to make the argument work,
>    
>    It's usually called "reality"....
    
  Sure, but the "reality" changes to fit your argument.

  When the right wants to complain about how unfair TV is to conservatives we
hear about the electronic conspiracy to promote a liberal bias to the news.

  When the right wants to show how popular their ideas are then suddenly the
failure of liberal talk show hosts is due to the fact that liberals get no
ratings.

  Which is it? Is TV liberal or conservative? Do ratings determine the bias
or is it all some giant conspiracy?

  It would be nice if you pick which reality you are going to argue rather
than switching back and forth depending on whether you want to bash the
liberal media or gloat over the fact that liberals can't get any air time.

  George

    
    Well when Peter and Sam are the only ballgame in town you HAVE no
    choice.

    
    
    Bull!!!
    
    Go ahead ski.... Take your best shot with whatever liberal bigwig radio
    personality you choose!! Give them their own show... their own time
    slot.. their own agenda and let them fly with it....
    
     See how long it lasts and what the ratings are...
    

RE              <<< Note 84.118 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

>    Go ahead ski.... Take your best shot with whatever liberal bigwig radio
>    personality you choose!! Give them their own show... their own time
>    slot.. their own agenda and let them fly with it....
    
  Are we splitting hairs between radio and TV?

  Phil Donahou seems pretty liberal and has been very successful with his TV
talk show.

  George

    How many other administrations, regardless of their political or
    philosophical affiliation, have felt the need to explicitly stuff
    a hand-picked mouthpiece into a regular star role in a presumably
    widely-broadcast program that is created for the sole purpose of
    pushing their propaganda?
    
    Chris

    
    
    RE: .119
    
    Are you serious???

    >    How many other administrations, regardless of their political or
    >    philosophical affiliation, have felt the need to explicitly stuff
    >    a hand-picked mouthpiece
    
    How many have spoon-fed their favorite reporters for years, to
    cultivate a relationship and ensure a favorable spin on their side of
    breaking issues?  All of them, one would expect.  A few details of such
    relationships have emerged over time, even going back to Woodrow
    Wilson's day.  
    
    Relationships between a top politician and the press are critical
    factors in this media age to the success or failure of that pol's
    policies.  Some administrations handle it better than others, both 
    here and abroad.  That the Clinton administration is seeking to change
    the way their policies are perceived and are seeking to use the media
    differently is such an obvious need for them that I can't see why it
    even generates comment.  What's the problem here?
    
    DougO

    
    There is no problem.  There already are bigtime liberal and
    conservative talk show hosts on both radio and TV.  If I were
    Rush, I'd worry more about other conservative hosts cutting into
    my take than I would about liberal ones, who'd be in a different
    market.
    
    On the other hand, if Bill and Hillary want to invest in the
    broadcasting business to pay their legal debts, I'd advise against
    it - too dicey.
    
    Why shouldn't the parties have newspapers, radio stations, cable
    channels ?  Sounds great.
    
      bb

RE    <<< Note 84.120 by DECWIN::RALTO "Suffering from p/n writer's block" >>>

>    How many other administrations, regardless of their political or
>    philosophical affiliation, have felt the need to explicitly stuff
>    a hand-picked mouthpiece into a regular star role in a presumably
>    widely-broadcast program that is created for the sole purpose of
>    pushing their propaganda?
    
  I think it depends on how wide a definition of "administration" you use.
During the '80s, it was hard to see the blurry line between conservative think
tanks and the Reagan administration. With Bush the line probably became more of
a reality. 

  As for Clinton, well this is all so much rumor. I doubt that the people who
are on his staff are actively involved with trying to start talk shows although
there may be liberal think tanks with close ties to people on Clinton's staff
who are involved with this. 

  George

    
    think tanks make contributions to all administrations, conservative or
    liberal.
    
    jeff

    Word is that Steph' may soon be under criminal investigation by Starr.

    
    ...and he'll look so good on the witness stand- so calm, so together,
    so compassionate, so eligible.  
    
    jeff

RE              <<< Note 84.121 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

>    RE: .119
>    
>    Are you serious???

  Phil Donohou does have a successful TV show.

  He is liberal.

  Do you disagree with one of those points?

  George

    >> How many have spoon-fed their favorite reporters for years, to
    >> cultivate a relationship and ensure a favorable spin on their side of
    >> breaking issues?  All of them, one would expect.
    
    I think that a closer "print media" analogy to this particular case
    would be for the administration to hire a reporter (or perhaps
    an op-ed commentator), and syndicate them in newspapers all over
    the country, with the explicit intent of "spreading the word".
    The difference is subtle but important; it's far more calculated
    and directed than the long-time practice of having a relationship
    with an existing reporter.  For example, in the "old-fashioned way",
    the reporter was presumably hired by the newspaper publisher, not
    the politician, and so on.
    
    Chris

    
    RE: .129
    
    >Phil Donohou does have a successful TV show.
    
     To some whackos maybe.... I never watch stuff like that so I'm at a
    real disadvantage... (go ahead.. I dare you)
    
    From what I understand, shows like his deal with the fringe of society
    and its bizarre and sensational.... I wouldn't call that "liberal"
    

    Donahue.  Donahue.  Donahue.

    Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice.

    Bloody Mary  Bloody Mary  Bloody Mary

    > -< Somehow it doesn't seem journalistically ethical >-
                
    hands up, those who think Rush covers news.
    
    all of you with hands up, put on your dunce caps- Rush himself says
    he's an entertainer.  
    
    Yet there are those who swear by his reports.  Is it ethical for him to
    masquerade as a journalist only until someone puts him on the spot, at
    which point he can disclaim all, saying "its just entertainment!"
    
    The public accepts it.  Clearly those who would oppose his agenda have
    the option to stoop to his level.  If there's an ethics problem to be
    discussed, it doesn't start with the present administration.
    
    DougO

    .134
    
    That's it, I'm off to Amory's.

    That was a horror movie, not a drink!!!!

    
    Not for me, darlin' 8^).

    
   > Rush is reporting that the Whitehouse headed by George
   > Stephenopolisisisisisisisisis(sp) is on a nationwide
   > talent search for a liberal radio talk show host. 
    
    this looks to be a weak plan b.  plan a was the now dead "hush rush"
    legislation.  too bad stephie hasn't figgered out that
    listeners who tune in to the proposed show on a regular basis
    are the ones who are gonna vote for ole slick anyway - assuming
    he's in fact nominated in '96.  however, if the new liberal superstar
    does manage to get an audience of 20 million a week calling in to
    demand bigger government and higher taxes, i'm definitely gonna
    check it out. ;-)
    
    bill

    i think a WH sponsored, if even indirectly, talk show would be an
    enormous opportunity that rush would truely love to see happen. he tear
    it apart. would be great fun to watch.

    
    yup, a lot of fun to watch, 'cause bill clinton is already starting to
    backpedal away from his defense cuts - he just called for an
    increase in defense spending of 25 billion - so the new show would
    prolly have to attack him too.  8^)
    

    Anent .131: Only Andy would define "successful" as something he liked
    personally...

       Not even I am without sin.  I merely am as close to it as any mortal
    ever will. :-)
    
       Been busy.  Aparently I have a lot of catching up to do.
    
    ME

    OK,  I will finally place my 2 cents in on this topic.
    
       There appears to be a liberal bias in the mainstream media.  I refer
    to the mainstream as the network news, newspapers, and other places
    where people get their news.  This is not to say that all news
    stations, papers,etc. are liberal, but most.  Therefore, you generally
    get the news that liberals want you to hear because it supports their
    ideas.  Ratings in this world don't matter as much because it is
    liberal v. liberal.
    
       When you get to talk radio, on the other hand, there is a lot more
    competition.  You have liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and
    others all trying to get an audience.  Ratings here are based more on
    ideology as well as content.
    
    I have more to say, but it will have to wait.
    
    Mark

    
    RE: .142
    
    There goes Wordy again.... with his "Open mouth, insert foot" act
    again...
    
      FYI.... I've never watched RL's show... never picked up his books,
    don't know if he's an "entertainer" or whatever... I have no idea what
    "ditto-head" means and have only heard it used here. My only knowledge
    of RL is from what people write about in here. 
    
     I also don't watch PD... never have.. never will.... I don't need to
    touch a hot stove to know it'll burn me.... 
    
    >   -< Not TOO arrogant >-
    
    
    and your arrogance shows when you assume and take for granted more than
    you should.... but your track record speaks for itself...
    

RE: SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto"

>    hands up, those who think Rush covers news.
 
Rush offers his views on the current issues, political and otherwise ...

>     all of you with hands up, put on your dunce caps- Rush himself says
>    he's an entertainer.  
 
 Those who feel that expressing an opinion in a entertaining fashion or that
 by virtue of being an entertainer one can not express an honest, accurate,
 or valid opinion are those who should sport the dunce caps ...

>    Yet there are those who swear by his reports.  Is it ethical for him to
>    masquerade as a journalist only until someone puts him on the spot, at
>    which point he can disclaim all, saying "its just entertainment!"
 
When did Rush ever claim to be a journalist? 

>   The public accepts it.  Clearly those who would oppose his agenda have
>   the option to stoop to his level.  If there's an ethics problem to be
>   discussed, it doesn't start with the present administration.

Rush has stated his objective as forwarding the cause of the conservative 
agenda which he firmly supports and believes in. How is that related to an
ethical problem?

Doug.

RE              <<< Note 84.131 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

>    From what I understand, shows like [Donahue] deal with the fringe of
>    society
>    and its bizarre and sensational.... I wouldn't call that "liberal"
    
  Sometimes yes and sometimes no. About half his shows are things like
"daughters who kill their mother's cross dressing boy friends", then half
his shows are things like interviews with AIDS activists or celebrities.

  With the others like Oprah and Geraldo it's almost exclusively the fringe
stuff but Donahue, who was the one that created that particular type of talk
show, is a bit more diverse.

  George

	I would like to pose a question to everyone..liberal and conservative alike:

	Is Rush Limbaugh the man most responsible for the results of the previous 
election?  Please, give a reason for your answer.

ME

    I don't think so.  I think that Billary Clinton is the ma... person
    most responsible for the results of the previous election.  And I
    think he knows it, finally.
    
    Chris

    No.  Considering Rush only has a specific size audience, I think he
    helped but I don't think he was the main person responsible.
    
    -Jack
    

Komar, old man, be a good egg and SET TER/WIDTH=80.

	Jack, I was gonna ask the same thing, but he was the judge, and I
didn't want to piss him off. You never know when he will judge again!

    	He may have had an effect, but I think he is mainly preaching to
    the choir. 

    .149
    
    Ditto.  Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;^)

             <<< Note 84.148 by REFINE::KOMAR "The Kroakie King" >>>
                          -< A question for you all >-

A bit off topic, but...

Couldn't help but notice how your personal name has changed. Guess you 
can't win 'em all. You got your way with the election, when the repubs 
lowered the boomer on the dems, but your your very own Boomer and his band 
of merry men have gone south.

Fondest condolences,
Pats fan

PS: You really have to work on getting Rush in perspective. He has no more 
to do with election victories than the Jets cheerleaders had to do with the 
Jets' collapse. (Sorry, couldn't resist one more dig)

Rush helped in that he provided opinion not widely held by the mass media, and
many people voted on this, who otherwise would have voted differently.

The biggest reasons for the November election results are health care and
gun control ...  pure and simple.

Doug.

    Those of us who like him would never say Rush is afflicted with
    false modesty; even Rush thought it was a hoot that some media
    types thought he could affect the election.
    
    I've always gotten the impression that he felt his role was to
    provide some balance; as fate would have it a lot of his predictions
    are coming to pass.......kinda like the Haagmeister does for 'da box
    :-)
    
    

Note 84.156 by BRITE::FYFE
    
>The biggest reasons for the November election results are health care and
>gun control ...  pure and simple.


    wrong. there was an overwhelming issue that resulted in the november
    GOP landslide. and that issue was government itself. when you add up
    the issues of the day, like gun control, health care, school prayer,
    welfare, taxes, etc., the people said ENOUGH. the government is way to
    intrusive in our daily lives and this admin was hell bent for leather
    to make it more intrusive, expensive, and inflexible. the people
    resonded with a very clear NO!
    
    the GOP ran a brillant campaign, led by dole and newt. they sensed
    america's disgust with bloated government and used that as the core
    theme of their efforts. politics is like selling. you listen to what
    the customer is asking for, and then you tell them that's what you're
    going to give them. governments, like other companies, that don't do
    that, don't last long.

>    america's disgust with bloated government and used that as the core
>    theme of their efforts. politics is like selling. you listen to what
>    the customer is asking for, and then you tell them that's what you're
>    going to give them. governments, like other companies, that don't do
>    that, don't last long.

And how did the Repubs illustrate a bloating/growing/more_intrusive government?

Health care (1/7 of the economy controlled by the government) and Gun control
(eating away at individual rights). Many races were won by narrow margins ...
without one or the other of the two issues mentioned, many races would have
gone the other way and the dems would still be the majority party.


Doug.

    Doug:
    
    Up here in Massachusetts, all the South Boston catholic Kennedy bum
    kissers from the AARP age are starting to die off.  Dear mother in law
    didn't even know that Ted Kennedy was pro abortion.
    
    He's catholic and he's from Mass.  That's all that mattered to these
    blind people.  Basically they prostituted America in the name of blind
    ideology.  No concept of reality some of these people...
    
    You will find the next election a far bigger disparity in victories
    against the dims.  Right now they are pretending to be republicans but
    it's too late.  People are seeing right through it.  
    
    -Jack

Note 84.159 by BRITE::FYFE 
    
>>And how did the Repubs illustrate a bloating/growing/more_intrusive government?

    they used a well calculated plan, emphasizing glutonous government,
    taliored to specific geographies' hot buttons. face it, most of
    braindead america evaluates political races based on a single issue.
    that's wrong, but that's the way it is. the GOP was smart enough to
    use the general theme of big bad government, then customize it as
    needed around the country. brillant plan. timing was near perfect.
    dimmikrits still haven't figured that out.
    

  
   The Contract with America, and all the work that went into it, 
   was a brilliant move.

   > that's wrong, but that's the way it is. the GOP was smart enough to
   > use the general theme of big bad government, then customize it as
   > needed around the country. brillant plan. timing was near perfect.
   > dimmikrits still haven't figured that out.
   
   Not so brilliant. The GOP has been spouting this theme for decades now.
   This is the first time that the dims have been so braisen as to support
   such wildeyed proposals that would support everything the GOP has been
   saying all along. The Dims (actually Clinton) handed it to us.

   Clinton is the best thing to happen to the GOP in recent history!

   > You will find the next election a far bigger disparity in victories
   > against the dims.  Right now they are pretending to be republicans but
   > it's too late.  People are seeing right through it.  
   > 
   > -Jack
 
   I certainly hope so. Given the recent actions by the Dims in reaction to
   the GOP sweep, they have exposed themselves even moreso than before, just
   how hollow and misguided they are.

   Doug.

	Jack, the ONLY way ANYONE could not know about Kennedy this year was if
they NEVER watched the tv news, and NEVER read the paper. This was the FIRST
campaign in a LONG time that he HAD to discuss the issues. 


Glen

    Glen:
    
    There is still a share of senior citizen ignoramous folks out there.
    
    -Jack

   

   > You will find the next election a far bigger disparity in victories
   > against the dims.  Right now they are pretending to be republicans but
   > it's too late.  People are seeing right through it.  
   > 
   > -Jack
 
   Rush put this on his TV show last night.

   Louisiana Democrat representive Bill Taukin made a speech where he claimed to 
   represent 12 (This number may not be precise, but its close) conservative 
   democrats who are fed up  with the dims liberal leadership. Given that the 
   dims leadership would prevent the conservative dims from speaking in the 
   house (the republicans had to request that the conservative dims speak) and 
   that the dims leadership gave out new positions to dims with the best 
   LIBERAL voting record (they kept a liberal report card on all members),
   the conservative dims have not felt a part of the dim part for a long time.

   He gave the dim party one year to move to center and include all party 
   members as equal or this block of 12 will switch parties since today, the
   republicans more closely represent their views than does the dim leadership.

   He also spoke well of the Contract with America and Newt.

   

    Doug.

    
    Rush Limbaugh blamed Peter Jennings for the death threats against
    Newt Gingrich.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 84.166 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>               -< And for the shots at the White House too.... >-
>
>    
>    Rush Limbaugh blamed Peter Jennings for the death threats against
>    Newt Gingrich.
>    
>    								-mr. bill


	And then at the end of the show a caller called him on it and he 
	admitted that he was being just as abusrd as those who were blaming 
	talk show hosts for the recent shootings at the White House.

    You have to be an idiot to take everything he says seriously.

Last friday he propagated the enet joke of Microsoft buying the
Catholic Church.

On Saturday there were two published articles on the subject ...

    re .168
    
    don't you mean ANYTHING rush says?
    
    

    
    Anything Rush says is absurd.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Everything Rush says is absurd.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    As are people who quote/cite/repeat what he says...
    

    Cute!!

    Back in the saddle again.
    
    Rule #1
    
    You have to be an idiot to believe EVERYTHING Rush says.  He does do
    quite a bit of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.  
    
    I have heard a couple of reports saying that the "hatemongers of talk
    radio" who have constantly disagreed with Clinton could be responsible
    for the recent attacks on the White House.  Since the mainstream media
    have cast Mr. Gingrich in a not-so-good-looking light and have
    disagreements with his policies, wouldn't it be fair to say that the
    mainstream media is partly responsible for the death threats on Mr.
    Newt.?
    
    Of course not, and neither should talk radio be in any way responsible
    for the attacks on CLinton.
    
    ME

  >>>      You have to be an idiot to believe EVERYTHING Rush says. 
    
    Yes but remember you're not an idiot if you listen to what Dan Rather
    says because he is never wrong.  
    
    I find it amazing what is being said here.  I can understand this type
    of fallacy being uttered by an AARP aged Ted Kennedy bumb kisser.  I
    can't understand why it is being said by an intelligent judge like
    Komar.  Steve Jong, you are too intelligent to be making fallacious
    statements as you did.  It is called a hasty generalization in case you
    forgot your freshman logic class in college.  
    
    Fairness in the Media cited Rush as making aa small amount of incorrect
    statements...far less than Koppel et al.  considering he does five TV
    shows and 5 three hour radio shows, I would say your hasty
    generalization is all wet!!!!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack, what fallacious statement do you think I made?

  >>>   Everything Rush says is absurd.
    
  >>>                           -mr.bill
    
    Steve, my deepest apologies.  It was Mr. bill who made the hasty
    generalization!
    
    -Jack

Note 84.176 by REFINE::KOMAR
    
    >You have to be an idiot to believe EVERYTHING Rush says.  He does do
    
    is there any public person who you would agree with 100%? not me. your
    stating the obvious is a waste of time.
    

    Leftie Does Right By `Rush Limbaugh' / 
    Actor builds hit show on radio host 


    EDWARD GUTHMANN, Chronicle Staff Critic 

    As political bedfellows go, Rush Limbaugh and Charlie Varon couldn't be
    more mismatched. One's the blustery, banner-waving savior of the New
    Right. The  other's a little- known San Francisco performer who calls
    himself a ``leftover leftie from  the '60s.'' 

    And yet, Varon, the writer and star of the local stage hit ``Rush
    Limbaugh in  Night School'' admits that he and his subject, the
    vituperative radio and TV  commentator, have more in common than might
    be imagined. 

    ``I happen to enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh,'' says Varon, a
    longtime  political activist. ``I think he's very entertaining. He's a
    prankster, and so am I. We're just at  different ends of the political
    spectrum.'' 

    MOCK DOCUMENTARY 

    Now in its third month at the Marsh, where it's been extended
    indefinitely,  ``Rush Limbaugh in Night School'' is a one-man satire,
    framed as a mock PBS  documentary, that imagines Limbaugh encountering
    the people he so merrily mocks on his weekly broadcasts. 

    Lately there's been talk of transferring the show to New York next year
    -- a  move that could launch Varon to national prominence. ``There's a
    lot of interest,'' Varon  says, but declines to give any specifics on
    negotiations. 

    Varon plays 24 characters in ``Rush Limbaugh,'' displaying a marvelous
    gift for  vocal mimicry, and sets his lampoon in 1996, when Limbaugh
    starts to feel competition  from a Latino political commentator. 

    In order to hip himself to the multicultural '90s, Limbaugh disguises
    himself in Birkenstocks, a fake mustache and goatee and a Ben & Jerry's
    T-shirt, enrolls in  a Spanish-language class at the ultra-lib New
    School for Social Research in New  York and finds himself romantically
    involved with a former member of the radical  Weather Underground. 

    Varon pulls in a variety of cultural types -- the director of a
    ``socially  responsible'' cable shopping channel, a gay performance
    artist named Homo Ludens -- and creates an absurdist gem when he
    imagines Limbaugh playing ``Othello'' to Garrison  Keillor's Iago,
    under the direction of monologuist Spalding Gray. ``I wanted to see
    what  happened when we took Limbaugh out of his element, where he
    wasn't in charge,'' says Varon,  36, a short, slender man with a dark
    beard, frisky humor and total lack of physical  resemblance to
    Limbaugh. 

    SHELTERED RUSH 

    Considering the fact that Limbaugh grew up in the '60s and '70s, Varon
    notes,  it's amazing how sheltered the commentator has remained from
    the countercul ture that emerged in his youth. 

    At one point, Limbaugh boasted that he'd never owned a pair of blue
    jeans. And  even though his show is broadcast from New York City, Varon
    says, ``I don't think  he's actually had much contact with the people
    he ridicules: environmentalists,  `femi-nazis' and `uppity gays.' And
    that's such a rich comic set-up.'' 

    This week, ``Rush Limbaugh'' reopens at the Marsh after a two-week
    holiday. The show plays Saturday with a New Year's Eve Gala, including
    champagne and cake, dancing and a radio talk-show host look-alike
    contest, and then reverts to its Thursday-through-Saturday schedule
    next week. 

    Why is the show such a hit? ``I think it's a half-decent farce,'' Varon
    says.  ``And I suppose there's something satisfying about throwing a
    lot of balls up in the air  and having them get caught in the end.'' 

    David Ford, one of two directors that Varon worked with on the show, is
    more  effusive. ``I think Charlie does what humor doesn't do enough of
    anymore, which is to let us  laugh at ourselves and maybe make things
    seem less confusing or frightening or beyond our control.'' 

    ARISTOPHANES' APPROACH 

    ``When you look at Aristophanes,'' Ford continues, ``he would take the
    powerful  or influential people of his day and make fun of them and
    everybody would know  exactly who he was talking about. And Charlie has
    done exactly the same thing with our electronic community and the world
    of media.'' 

    ``Rush Limbaugh'' has brought Varon new success. Best known for his BBC
    news takeoffs on KQED-FM's ``West Coast Weekend,'' Varon has performed
    mostly as a satirist and stand-up comic since his student days at
    Horace Mann High School in  the Bronx. 

    He studied theater at Brown University in Rhode Island, dropped out and
    moved to  San Francisco in 1978, formed a two-person comedy team called
    the Atomic Comics and  in 1991 staged his first solo show, ``Honest
    Prophets,'' also at the Marsh. It  later played in the 1992 Solo Mio
    Festival. 

    Along the way, Varon met his partner of 15 years, artist Myra Levy. The
    couple  live in Noe Valley with their two sons, Jonah 3, and Jeremy, 5
    months. 

    ``Rush Limbaugh'' was hatched a year ago, Varon says, when he was
    speaking with  a friend, local comic Marilyn Pittman. ``We got onto the
    subject of talk radio,''  he recalls, ``and I lapsed into my Limbaugh
    voice. She said, `Charlie, you have to do  something with this.' 

    ``Somehow I got the title. You know, there are these operas: `Einstein
    on the  Beach' and `Nixon in China.' So I thought, `Rush Limbaugh in
    Night School,' and it kind of  grew from there. I'd wanted to do
    something that people would come and see, and this  seemed like a
    topical thing that would catch people's interest.'' 

    Last January, Varon started tossing ideas around with Ford, and tried
    them out  at the Marsh, where Monday nights are devoted to works in
    progress. In August, he and  Ford spent a month hammering out the
    play's intricate, full-of- surprises structure.  Later, Martin Higgins
    was brought in as director. 

    ``Charlie's continued to rewrite all along,'' Ford says. ``He calls me
    in New  York and says, `I just had this idea . . .' or `I'm stuck on
    something, can you help me find a  way out?' We have a great time
    bouncing off one another: It's very `Dick Van Dyke Show.' '' 

    The heart of Varon's work, Ford thinks, is its lack of malice.
    ``Charlie's a  very generous satirist, generous to everybody, which is
    something that Rush Limbaugh could  learn about. He's an equal-
    opportunity satirist; he goes after people on the left and  the right
    equally, as much with love as with knives.'' 

    `CARNIVAL BARKER' 

    In Varon's view, the left has demonized Limbaugh, turned him into its
    ``most  favored target'' and consequently given him more credence and
    publicity than he deserves  -- instead of treating him as the
    ``carnival barker'' that he is. 

    ``You know, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting spends all this energy
    in trying  to debunk what he says, and I suppose there's importance in
    that,'' Varon says. 

    ``But I've not succeeded in taking him so seriously. Polemics are not
    my thing. 

    ``If you take Limbaugh seriously, you give him more power. My goal is
    to have  fun and take him into a different direction. You know, you're
    treading on very dangerous  ground as a performer if you spend 90
    minutes each night with someone you don't like. 

    ``And I identify with a lot of what Limbaugh is about. He's about
    having fun on  the radio. He's about satire and pranksterism. That's
    what I love, too.'' 

    I wish that guy well, unlike the mall in the following story:
    (Snatched from Prodigy)
    
    Mall Dumps Limbaugh Store
    COLUMBUS, Ohio--A store catering to fans of Rush Limbaugh is getting
    the bum's rush from an upscale shopping mall.
       Current Events, which sells Limbaugh coffee mugs, t-shirts, baseball
    caps and "Rush is Right" bumper stickers from a kiosk at the Lane
    Avenue Shopping Center, which will lose its lease when it expires
    Saturday, said owner Bill Khourie.
       He blamed pressure from anti-Limbaugh forces who have been picketing
    the mall on recent Saturdays.
       "It's tragic that this is happening, but I don't own the shopping
    center," Khourie said Wednesday.
       Mall General Manager Marcy Starkey denied management was reacting to
    the handful of protesters.  The decision not to renew the lease was
    part of the mall's routine evaluation of the tennants, said Starkey,
    who failed to elaborate.
       Steve Rosenbaerg, who led the protests, took credit.
       "We feel that the politics of divisiveness and hatred are bad
    business," Rosenberg said.  "They were doing a strong business.  The
    only other factor was the controversy."
       Neither the conservative firebrand Limbaugh nor his chief of staff,
    Kit Carson, could be reached for comment.  Both were traveling
    Wednesday and could not return messages, their offices said.
       Khourie opened the kiosk in mod-September as a spinoff of a
    mail-order business he and a couple of partners from Nevada have
    operated for several years under a license from Limbaugh.
       He plans to reopen and is taking down names and addresses of
    customers to let them know where and when.
       Limbaugh fans, who call themselves "Ditto Heads," promised to punish
    the mall for giving their hero the boot.
       "I will never shop this mall again," vowed Columbus resident Tracy
    Pence as she paid $16.95 for a "Ditto Head" sweat shirt.
    (from AP)
    
    Comments in next post...
    
    ME 

    Comments about the story I posted.
    
    	The mall's GM "could not elaborate" on the reason.  If the protest
    leader said the store was doing well, then what is the problem?
    
    	There were a handful of protesters.  The store was doing well.  Who
    do you worry about?
    
    	The story tried to get a comment from "conservative firebrand Rush
    Limbaugh".  No liberal bias here, eh?
    
    	Kudos to the store owner for not giving up and opening somewhere
    else.
    
    ME   

    	Rush is a jerk, but the mall is still wrong if they are kicking
    out the buisness because of it's product line.
    
    
    								S.R.

    The S.R. Dictionary:
    
    Jerk: n, someone who isn't a pandering liberal and who is correct about
             most things.
    
    -b

    You beat me to it.
    
    I challenge that guy to listen to what Rush says and TRY TO UNDERSTAND
    IT.
    
    IF he can't listen at work, then watch the television show (11:30 on
    channel 25)
    
    ME

    why try to understand nasty humor?
    
    trying to understand Rush is like analyzing Roseanne for spiritual
    guidance.

    If you think all Rush does is "nasty" humor, then you obviously don't
    listen to his radio show, watch his television show, or read his
    newsletter (or his books).
    
    Rush provides conservative (admitted) political commentary on the news
    of the day.  That is mixed in with calls for listeners asking
    questions, making comments, or depating Rush.  Also mixed in is some
    humor (which is hardly nasty) that does make a point.
    
    Find me an example of "nasty humor" and I'll attempt to explain it to
    you.
    
    ME

    
 >   Find me an example of "nasty humor" and I'll attempt to explain it to
 >   you.
 
 One need only see a couple of his television show opening skits to see examples
 of nasty humor. Billary is usually the target.

 Doug.

 

    Nasty humor:  Humor that shows someone in a light that they are not AND
    is not based on truth.
    
    Nearly all of the opening skits to Rush's tv show are based on truth.
    
    What is your definition?
    
    Me

    I think most of his opening skits are HILLARious :-)
    
    
    
    PS:  Can't believe the mall GM decided to stir this up; is he in
    for a rude awakening :-)
    
    

    all of rushes self adulation is a bit much. but think about something.
    if he was all hot air, we wouldn't be seeing constant references to his
    "ruination of the country" from the likes of slick, dee dee, and the
    liberals in the media talk shows on sunday morning. what really keeps
    those liberals up at night is:
    
      1. rush saying nasty, but true, things about them and their policies.
    
      2. LOTS of people believe rush is right.
    
    the current admin plays right into rushes games by responding to his
    attacks. its a sign of serious immaturity in the WH. its their biggest
    failure.

    Rush is making himself *very* wealthy by getting the rubes to
    contribute to him -- his books, his newsletters, his merchandise, his
    radio shows, his TV shows.  I think it's hilarious.

    re -1
    
    wordy. its free enterprise. the amerian way. its amazing that liberals
    seem to think something is wrong with that.

    Did I say there's something wrong with it?  He's entitles to every buck
    he can earn (less taxes, of course).
    
    I'm just amused by the number of people who think they're buying news
    and are getting entertainment.

    	What's wrong with news that entertains?

    it boggles the mind that wordy thinks rush delivers entertainment
    disguised as news, yet supports king bill and queen hill.

    Deceptive advertising.

Note 84.198 by TNPUBS::JONG 
    
    >>        -< Too many people think he's a political commentator >-
    >>Deceptive advertising.
    
    rush doesn't try one bit to hide what he is or what his opinions are.
    unlike most politicians, he pretty much speaks his mind. what's
    deceptive about that? different people will get different opinions
    about what his intentions and messages are. but it won't be because
    he's trying to hide stuff. OTOH, many MORE people believe the folks
    that give you a 20 second "washington update" on the 6 o'clock news are
    viable, reputable political commentators. talk about deceptive
    advertising. and the braindead suck it all in.

    
    rush was named "man of the year" by the detroit news.

    
    RE: .198
    
    >Deceptive advertising.
    
    
    Make believe I'm from Missouri....
    

My $0.02

I am not a big Rush fan, but I've listened a bit and agreed sometimes. I also
agree with whats been said before about him ...

- It's entertainment.
- He sees BS, calls it, rips it, and folks hate it because he "has the audacity
  to have fun while he's doing it" (loose quote from a former note somewhere).

Now that the repubs are in, what's going to happen?

I'll bet Rush has just as much fun with them, they're as full of BS as the 
dems. He'll be ripping Newt and Bob in the first week of the new session.

>dems. He'll be ripping Newt and Bob in the first week of the new session.

    
|Now that the repubs are in, what's going to happen?
|
|I'll bet Rush has just as much fun with them, they're as full of BS as the 
|dems. He'll be ripping Newt and Bob in the first week of the new session.
    
    Clueless.  Absolutely clueless.
    
    
    Now, Jerry Williams, there is a "muckraker" who will bash anything for
    a listener.  Too bad he got so damn hung up on seat belts (boa-ring)
    that he lost the local Leno/Letterman contest to Howard Winston Carr III.
    
    Howard Winston Carr III.  How many guys have you met in your lifetime
    who try to pass themselves off as regular guys after they went to an
    accademy instead of a high school and are taking in 6 or 7 figures a
    year?  Give him points for consistency though.
    
    Politicians you hate.  Commericals you hate.  Politicians you hate. 
    Songs you hate.  Politicians you hate.  TV shows you hate.  Politicians
    you hate.  Wife beating lefty talk show hosts who make more money than
    me you hate.  Politicians you hate.  Gays you hate.  Politicians you
    hate.  Now that I don't live in rent control appartment rent control
    laws you hate.  Politicians you hate.  Blacks you hate.  Politicians
    you hate.  Women you hate.  Politicians you hate.  Gifts you hate.
    Politicians you hate.  Names you hate.  Politicians you hate.  Writers
    you hate.  Politicians you hate.
    
    								-mr. bill

    not much to say, huh Billy?

Actually, I'd thought that Howie had lightened up a bit on
the politicians now that he owns the afternoon airtime in
the Beantown market. Maybe it sunk in that he got  kind of
boring to those of us who don't live in the PRM. Billy
Bulger (sp?) doesn't have a whole lot of effect on me . . . 

    Add whining morons we hate to that list.
    
    -b

    You better believe that Rush will be on the Republicans case if they do
    something he disagrees with.
    
    ME

    could someone send me mail that show what radio stations carry rush in
    IA, NE, and CO? i could sure use later this week.
    
    tyvm!
    
    ps. please be quick.

    re -1
    
    gawd typing on these laptops is hard. especially these 320p's.

 KOVR in Colorado Springs carries him...can't remember the frequency..I had
 lots of fun trying to find him whilst driving to/from Colorado last 
 summer..My son, Scott would say "Hey dad..is Rush on?"



JIm

    Denver's 850 AM from 11AM to 2PM.  50,000 watts, you should be able to 
    pick up his dribble all the way through Nebraska during the day.  But
    why would you want to?
    
    -- Jim

One man's dribble is another man's intelligent commentary.

Besides, have YOU ever listened to Rush?

ME

    |One man's dribble is another man's intelligent commentary.

    Or another woman's fantas.... ooops. Did you mean drivel?
    
    Oh. nevermind.

    I was starting to wonder whether this was the Rush Limbaugh note or the
    Bob Cousy note...

    	If Bob Cousy, then it would have been dwibble.

    Then it would have been Barbara Walters' fantasy.

    Yes I have listened to him.  After listening to his radio program for a
    total of 3 or 4 hours over many, many broadcasts, and watching his late
    night half hour TV show once, and hearing him recite "'Twas the Night
    Before Christmas" on a CD that I got from Taco Bell last year, all I
    can say is that he makes the most sense and is most pleasant in the
    recitation.
    
    By the way I tried to sell that damned CD in the last incarnation of
    Soapbox last Christmas and only got one taker (Covert) who wanted to
    pay me 10 cents on the dollar.  It's still for sale.
    
    -- Jim

    How much?
    
    ME

    >Howard Winston Carr III.  How many guys have you met in your lifetime
    >who try to pass themselves off as regular guys after they went to an
    >accademy instead of a high school and are taking in 6 or 7 figures a
    >year?
    
    How about Mike Barnicle.

    $5.
    
    -- Jim

    Barnicle's tough one to peg. Most of the time I agree with his
    position and find his style amusing. Sometimes he's way out on the
    fringe (from my position).
    
    Mike's a VN vet. I think he was a 2nd louie. I don't get the impression
    that he was a grunt. So I do have some respect for his life's
    experience. Clearly, he has money now and if he's true to his
    portrayals on Chronicle, he's a grounded and a fairly generic
    kinda guy. Calling him Joe Average might be a stretch...
    
    Chip

    re: Note 84.202 by DECWET::LOWE "Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng.,  DTN 548-8910"
    
|   He'll be ripping Newt and Bob in the first week of the new session.
    
    Rush is back today.  Anyone going to take bets that Rush will *not*
    call Newt a kook for his laptops-for-welfare-queens?
    
    								-mr. bill

Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
From: skip@igc.apc.org (Skip Vogt)
Subject: Barney Limbaugh
Keywords: smirk, television
Approved: funny@clarinet.com
Path: jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!looking!funny-request
Message-ID: <S7b6.5501@clarinet.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 19:30:03 EST
Lines: 51
Someone earlier suggested a striking similarity between Rush
Limbaugh and television wrestlers.  On my cable system, however,
Rush occupies the slot next to Barney and, while channel surfing
recently, I began to notice the similarity between the two.  For
comparison's sake:
 
                         Barney                 Rush
                         ------                 ----
 
Large clumsy              YES                   YES
animal?
 
Garish, tight-            YES                   YES
fitting clothes?
 
Oversized head            YES                   YES
and oversized rump?
 
Stupid, repeti-          "I love you          "I hate Bill
tious song that           You love me...       I hate  Hillary
is repeated ad
nauseam?
 
Idiotic plastic           YES                   YES
grin no matter
what he's saying?
 
Beloved by some           YES                   YES
but hated by
others?
 
Appeals mostly to         YES                   YES
those of limited
ability to think
for themselves?
 
Makes more money          YES                   YES
than is warranted
by talent?
 
Spawn of Satan?           Some say yes          Some say yes
 
I think the evidence is clear!
 
 
--
Selected by Maddi Hausmann Sojourner.  MAIL your joke to funny@clarinet.com.
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible.  A Daemon will auto-reply.
 
Remember: PLEASE spell check and proofread your jokes.  You think I have
time to hand-correct everybody's postings?

    sparklingly clever.

    One could just as easily juxtapose Hillary Clinton and Miss Piggy.

    exactly. Or Slick Willie and butthead.

    re: .225 by Levesque                                       
    
|   -< true genious at work >-
|    sparklingly clever.
    
    But for course this is sparkingly clever....
    
    "Rush warns his listeners that if they lick the new
    Marilyn Monroe stamp, something awful will happen:
    
    they'll become an honorary Kennedy."
    
    								-mr. bill

    >But for course this is sparkingly clever....
    
     Stay away from volatile liquids, then.

    Rush as Barney....ooooooooooooooohhhhh, so cruel, so wicked, so...
    neatly skewered!
    
    DougO

     So lame. Or is any "skewering" of Rush applauded as being clever?
    
     As was noted, it would be an easy task for an 8th grader to come up
    with an equally adept "skewering" of the president or her husband.

It's not out of the blue if you're a demon kisser.

					-K-

    sheesh levesque, lighten up or marry him...
    not every thing needs to be aerobically intellectual. it's friday!
    
    Chip

RE: 84.231 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> As was noted, it would be an easy task for an 8th grader to come up
> with an equally adept "skewering" of the president or her husband.

For example, "of the president or her husband".  Clever,  NOT!


Phil

I'm sorry, that's what I get for thinking I know how to use this XNOTES thing.

RE: 84.231

It doesn't matter that someone else could come up with the same kind of
joke about the President or his wife. What matters is that somebody DID
come up with it about Rush. It looks to me like your skin is too thin.

					-K-

    
    RE: .234
    
    Since when have you gotten righteous Phil???
    
    How about if we pick Newt?
    

    
|    As was noted, it would be an easy task for an 8th grader to come up
|   with an equally adept "skewering" of the president or her husband.
    
    Would it be safe to say it would also be an easy task for an 8th grader
    to come up with an equally adept "praising" of Rush by comparing him to
    Elvis?
    
    								-mr. bill

    The reaction here is funnier than the joke. Rush uses ridicule, and is
    therefore a legitimate target of ridicule.  Secondly, Clinton has been
    the target of about a million jokes taking off on his predilection for
    junk food (including SNL skits of gluttony, and Letterman's revolving
    picture of Clinton with MacDonalds French Fries with accompanying
    fireworks and martial music).  Its been done.  Why're you guys so
    offended by it?  Maybe, because ... its FUNNY?  The joke WORKS?
    
    Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Funny???????
    
    Okaayyyy.

    >The reaction here is funnier than the joke. Rush uses ridicule, and is
    >therefore a legitimate target of ridicule.
    
     No disagreements. But it would have helped if it had been funny.
    
     It's like the difference between a good Kennedy joke and a stupid one.
    One you laugh at, the other you laugh at the person who told it.
    

    It's time to announce the winners of Rush's 2nd annual awards show:
    
    Best Song: Ted Kennedy - "Itsy, bitsy spider" sung to preschoolers
    during campaign
    
    Best Plea: Jim(?) Sasser - "I've earned the right to be Majority
    Leader" during a debate
    
    Best Use of Language: Ted Kennedy - "?????????" garbled speech during
    campaign
    
    Dumbest Liberal Line: Joycelyn Elders - Don't know the exact quote, but
    it was about teaching masterbation
    
    Best Outburst: Sam Gibbons - "Babies will continue to play" during a
    committee meeting
    
    Best Prediction: Algore - Thought Republican predictions of taking the
    Congress were wrong
    
    Best Threat: Bill Clinton - "Your time is up" to Haitian leaders during
    nationally televised speech
    
    Best Reason Dems lost: (?) Graham (not Phil) - Voters were upset about
    health care
    
    Best Campaign Commercial: Inhofe - Bug Zapper after oppenent (an
    incumbant) said that entertainment was a sixpack and a bug zapper
    
    Finally,..
    
    Excellence in Communications: Rush Limbaugh (not a politician) - speech
    to freshmen Congressmen
    
    ME

    I heard that Rush contracted that deadly flesh eating virus.
    

    He's been given 5-6 years to live.

    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA{gasp}HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    
    {ahem}
    
    {snort}
    
    oh dear.

    
    seeing him on teevee as, opposed to listening to 
    him on de radio was tres revealing. what a pompous 
    guy, generously telling the studio audience to be 
    seated as he plops his vastness into his chair after 
    a couple of minutes of obviously orchestrated applause..

    Of course he's pompous...what did you think?!  First time you've
    watched him?  He does that sort of thing all the time.  The smart thing
    he did though was he blankets his real intent under the guise of
    entertainment.  The real intent is to continually chew away at the
    powerbase of liberalism...which I happen to think is a good thing. 
    Some of it is stretching it and some of it is effective...it must be
    since he gets calls from high power figures like Greenspan, etc. 
    
    -Jack

  ZZ      The smart thing
  ZZ      he did though was he blankets his real intent under the guise of
  ZZ      entertainment. 
    
    To Diane, sorry I changed from the past tense to the present in one
    sentence!
    
    -Jack

  ZZ      The smart thing
  ZZ      he did though was he blankets his real intent under the guise of
  ZZ      entertainment. 
    
    You mean, *gasp*, Rush is agin liberals.  Gasp, I never picked up
    on that hidden agenda.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Oh...It's blatent no doubt.  But when he is challenged on the "hate
    talk" as some of you sinsityve types put it, he just says, "Hey, I'm an
    entertainer".  We all know that he isn't an entertainer but he pretends
    to be so he can keep chipping away at the liberal powerbase.
    
    -Jack

	I don't know about you, but I find Rush entertaining.  Therefore, Rush
is an entertainer.

ME

    blatant

    Uhhhhhhhhh....
    
    
   Sorry bout dat  

    HUTCHISON: Dittoheads rush to call paper on Rush advice

    By Sue Hutchison

    A FUNNY THING happened here at ``liberal media'' headquarters last
    week. Editors and reporters at the Mercury News were bombarded with
    about 70 messages from indignant radio listeners who snarled into our
    phone mail: ``Stop lying about the school lunch program!'' Then they
    hung up.

    Very few of the callers bothered to identify themselves or offered to
    tell us the truth about the school lunch program. Most didn't even say
    how we were lying. They knew we were, though, because their master,
    Rush Limbaugh, told them so and he said they'd better call us on it.

    Being an elite media type, I have a lot of trouble understanding the
    polemicizing of ``Dittoheads'' -- as the most rabid Rush Limbaugh fans
    call themselves.  While Dittoheads screeched into their telephone
    earpieces and listened through the mouthpiece all I heard was: ``Hi!
    I'm a wooden-headed marionette!'' (Click, dial tone.)

    I was also puzzled by the calls because I didn't detect a
    wacky-prankster tone in the messages, as one might if the callers were
    sent by, say, Howard Stern. They were furious, not puckish. But
    Dittoheads must be very gratified to know they threw me for a loop.

    CONFUSED ABOUT exactly how ``the media'' had lied, I was interested to
    learn some Dittoheads were asked if they'd read our stories about the
    school lunch program. Imagine my chagrin to hear that most of them had
    not read our coverage. But I doubt most of them can read a menu.

    I was further perplexed to discover that many Dittoheads apparently
    were unable to parrot even Leader Limbaugh's stand on the school-lunch
    debate. In fact, they probably think a block grant is a Fisher-Price
    toy. But they did know one thing. They were good and mad and they
    weren't going to let facts stand in the way of a cleansing tirade.

    Hey, I can understand that. Nothing makes me feel more serene and
    validated than when I occasionally haul off and let somebody have it.
    Like Dittoheads, for example.

    But the Dittoheads must know they're part of a national trend and,
    therefore, feel invincible. Michael Kinsley described the phenomenon
    recently in a New Yorker commentary: ``It's not just that Americans are
    scandalously ignorant. It's that they seem to believe they have a
    democratic right to their ignorance. . . . Populism, in its latest
    manifestation, celebrates ignorant opinion and undifferentiated rage.''

    Typical sniping from a prince of the elite liberal media, eh?

    ANYWAY, THERE'S nothing new about this trend. But, considering we're in
    the information age, I had naively hoped an angry mob wading into
    political debate might actually avail itself of, well, information. His
    Rushness certainly has, though he's frighteningly adept at twisting it
    for his own amusement. And even some of his fans are informed. But not
    the Dittoheads. They're just happy to be outraged and aggressively
    ignorant.

    Maybe some of the anonymous callers will surprise me by reading this
    and sending me hate mail, complete with a lucid description of the
    Republican school-lunch policy. And following their accusations that
    I'm pathetically jealous of Rush's huge following -- which is
    absolutely true -- they might even sign their names.

    If so, I'll forward my hate mail to Limbaugh who, I'm sure, will be
    glad to know the dunces at the back of the class have been paying
    attention.

Published 3/16/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.

    	You'd think she would have given an internet address if she
    	really wanted mail...

    I stripped off the contact information included at the end of the
    column.  Blame me, not her.
    
    DougO

    
    thats the m-n for you. if its not ellen, it's kinsley that
    they quote.
    
    to say nothing of the egregiously liberal donald kaul. 
    
    how  many  times would they run a george  will or pat buke
    cannon column per year?z
    
    

	Are you still curious about the lie?

Here are the facts (heard on C-Span)

The Republicans plan to INCREASE funding for schools lunchs by 4.5%

President Clinton's OWN BUDGET only increased funding for school
lunches by a mere 3.1%.

President Clinton claims the Republicans are cutting funding.

The liberal media says the Republicans are cutting funding.

These are the facts.

If DougO would kindly send me the e-mail address of that person, I will
gladly send this message to him.

ME

    
    
    
    Yup, many of us have seen the figures and know that what the lib media
    (as Doug has so kindly provided proof) is espousing is exactly what
    thedemorats in congress are esousing and that is a bunch of lies.  You
    ready to admit that the Repub plan will INCREASE the funds yet, Doug?  
    
    The lying libs had a lunch demonstration yesterday, handing out
    sandwiches and apples and cookies yesterday to perpetuate their lie.
    One reporter commented on how much of this food was wasted and was 
    feeding flies and other insects..........

    
    Well, actually, it is not possible to say that it is a "4.5%" increase,
    or any other number, increase or decrease, without oversimplifying.
    Yes, in an average state, if you have the same eligibility, then
    a totally destitute kid gets lunch free, $1.90 this year, $1.99 next,
    and so forth, a 4.5% increase.
    
    But the Republican plan also changes eligibility (particularly aliens),
    and it changes the apportionment among states.  Actually, the current
    entitlement is NOT equal among states, and neither is the Republican
    plan.  But Republicans are correct that Block Grant Vs. Entitlement
    is not a funding or deficit issue - it is an administrative one.  And
    neither approach is without certain absurdities at the margins.
    
    What is REALLY funny is that there is a real CUT in food stamps here,
    a totally different program.  But since everybody knows food stamps
    are very unpopular (just look at the hostility on the faces of the
    non-food-stamp customers vs. food-stamp customers in a low-income
    area supermarket), and school lunches are popular, the Democrats have
    adopted the policy of lying where there is no cut rather than fight
    a real cut.
    
      bb

    DougO:
    
    Amazing how she uses a whole column in the paper to say that Dittoheads
    cannot think for themselves...then she cites 70 irate calls to her
    office.  Lets assume that Rush is watched in 250,000 households.  Let's
    assume...just to make the number in your favor, that 1 person in each
    household watches the show.  The math should be fairly simple...
    
    			250,000
    			------- = 3,571.43
                          70
    
    This means that 1 in 3,571 households called this woman...
    DougO, this would be .00028 percent of Rush fans following Rush in a
    massive tyrade.  In short DougO, another example of liberalism
    attempting to portray Rush as the leader of a mob.  Ha ha ha!!!
    
    WRONG!!!!  TRY AGAIN!!!!
    
    -Jack	  
    

    I was amazed that she wasted a whole article on bashing people.  I
    think she was intellectually dishonest, describing all Ditto-heads as
    being mindless parrots due to a few calls.  I wonder if her
    defensiveness comes from knowing that the "liberal media" is in fact
    being dishonest about the lunch program.
    
    In any case, since she dedicate an entire article to bashing a group of
    people, without the benefit of having any real content, I have to
    question her journalistic integrity.
    
    
    -steve

    That Rush lies is not news.
    
    But a hint for the Newtniks.  When you lie, you really ought to get
    your act together so that everybody is telling the same lies.  It
    looks mighty odd when you've got a few dozen Republicans all telling
    different lies.
    
    Percentage games are so much fun.
    
    So let's get directly to the bottom line.
    
    President proposed $8.155B dollars for FY1996.
    Republicans proposed $6.681B dollars for FY1996.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    The President did NOT propose that number for "school lunches" in
    1996, Mr. Bill.  It includes day care centers.  The lies are yours.
    
      bb

    
    Go for it.  Find "day care centers" in the following.
    
    								-mr. bill
    
              Program and Financing (in thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification code 12-3539-0-1-605      1994 actual   1995 est.   1996 est.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Program by activities:
          School lunch program:
00.01  Above 185% of poverty............     321,943     331,865     343,991
00.02  130-185% of poverty..............     404,604     417,075     432,311
00.03  Below 130% of poverty............   3,624,036   3,735,728   3,872,219
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
00.91  Subtotal, school lunch...........   4,350,583   4,484,668   4,648,521
      School breakfast program:
01.01  Above 185% of poverty............      23,966      26,345      29,011
01.02  130-185% of poverty..............      42,181      46,367      51,060
01.03  Below 130% of poverty............     892,511     981,074   1,080,383
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
01.91  Subtotal, school breakfast.......     958,658   1,053,786   1,160,454
      Child and adult care feeding
       program:
02.01  Above 185% of poverty............     596,053     648,535     722,795
02.02  130-185% of poverty..............      40,183      41,231      46,379
02.03  Below 130% of poverty............     699,508     767,574     861,676
02.04  Audits...........................      19,613      24,009      26,643
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
02.91  Subtotal, child and adult care
        feeding.........................   1,355,357   1,481,349   1,657,493
03.01 Summer feeding....................     243,019     256,456     280,303
03.02 Special milk program..............      19,611      18,063      18,652
03.03 State administrative expenses.....      86,731      92,196     100,308
03.04 Commodity procurement.............     243,891     255,667     269,534
03.05 Nutrition education and training..      10,269      10,270 ...........
03.06 Food service management institute.       1,853       1,853 ...........
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
03.91  Program by Activities--Subtotal
        line (1 level)..................     605,374     634,505     668,797
      Activities with permanent
       appropriations:
05.01  Homeless children nutrition
        program......................... ...........       1,800       2,600
05.02  Prevention of boarder babies..... ...........         400         400
05.03  Information clearinghouse........ ...........         200         200
05.04  Nutrition education and training. ...........           1      10,000
05.05  Food service management institute ...........         147       2,000
05.06  School breakfast startup grants.. ...........       5,000       5,000
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
05.91  Subtotal, activities with
        permanent appropriations........ ...........       7,548      20,200
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
10.00  Total obligations................   7,269,972   7,661,856   8,155,465
     Financing:
17.00 Recovery of prior year obligations    -139,228 ........... ...........
21.40 Unobligated balance available,
       start of year: Treasury balance..     -74,733    -439,171    -214,831
24.40 Unobligated balance available, end
      of year: Treasury balance........     439,171     214,831 ...........
25.00 Unobligated balance expiring......       2,841 ........... ...........
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
39.00  Budget authority.................   7,498,023   7,437,516   7,940,634
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Budget authority:
       Current:
        Appropriation:
40.00    Appropriation..................   2,707,637   2,162,802   2,399,942
40.00    Appropriation..................      20,277      18,089 ...........
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
43.00    Appropriation (total)..........   2,727,914   2,180,891   2,399,942
       Permanent:
60.00   Appropriation................... ...........       7,548      20,200
62.00   Transferred from other accounts.   4,770,109   5,249,077   5,520,492
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
63.00    Appropriation (total)..........   4,770,109   5,256,625   5,540,692
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Relation of obligations to outlays:
71.00 Total obligations.................   7,269,972   7,661,856   8,155,465
72.40 Obligated balance, start of year:
       Unpaid obligations: Treasury
       balance..........................   1,012,244   1,094,878   1,111,945
74.40 Obligated balance, end of year:
       Unpaid obligations: Treasury
       balance..........................  -1,094,878  -1,111,945  -1,184,371
77.00 Adjustments in expired accounts...      -4,411 ........... ...........
78.00 Adjustments in unexpired accounts.    -139,228 ........... ...........
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
87.00  Outlays (gross)..................   7,043,699   7,644,789   8,083,039
89.00 Budget authority (net)............   7,498,023   7,437,516   7,940,634
90.00 Outlays (net).....................   7,043,699   7,644,789   8,083,039
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



  Payments are made for cash and commodity meal subsidies through the
school lunch, school breakfast, summer food service, and child and
adult care food programs.

           Object Classification (in thousands of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification code 12-3539-0-1-605      1994 actual   1995 est.   1996 est.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 25.1 Advisory and assistance services..       3,564       3,665       3,598
 26.0 Supplies and materials (grants of
       commodities to states)...........     243,891     255,667     269,534
 41.0 Grants, subsidies, and
       contributions....................   7,022,517   7,402,524   7,882,333
                                         ----------- ----------- -----------
 99.9  Total obligations................   7,269,972   7,661,856   8,155,465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where are the Federal administrative costs hidden in that? I didn't see
a line item, yet we know they exist because that's the whole basis for
the savings through the block grants.

    
    Yes, it is there.  $4.x billion is school lunches, a number the
    Republicans matches.  1.1 billion school breakfasts, and another
    $2B is "child and adult care feeding", which is snacks in daycare.
    
    The Republican daycare number is not known.  There was an earlier
    number, now abandoned.  It will be rolled into WICM (sp - ?).  The
    block grant proposed for schools only is as Mr. Bill says, and is
    not a cut.
    
    The current proposal is to increase daycare but more savagely cut
    welfare.  But it will not be in THIS block grant in any case.
    
      bb

    
    Ah, "child and adult care feeding".  You actually think that has
    something to do with "child care centers"?  Silly you.
    
    Specifically, it is "The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
    of 1990 (42 U.S.C 9858 et seq.)."
    
    Guess what?  The republican bill *SPECIFICALLY* includes spending
    on "The Child Care and Developement Block Grant Act of 1990" in
    *this* *block* *grant*.
    
    Apples to apples, this is a cut.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

|Where are the Federal administrative costs hidden in that? I didn't see
|a line item, yet we know they exist because that's the whole basis for
|the savings through the block grants.
    
    No, that's the whole hand wave of rhetoric claiming massive mythical
    savings through the block grants.  I haven't found the specific call
    out of administrative costs in the FY1996 budget (one of the problems
    with on line copies).
    
    But in the FY1994 budget, the Fed administration came to a total of
    estimated $18 Million dollars.  (A fraction of the state administration
    expenses, which were estimated $87 Million dollars for FY1994.)
    
    
    The original republican block grant said "here, take the money and run."
    The latest block grant proposal has almost the same adminstrative
    expenses as current practices.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Mr. Bill, you are misinformed, it is not apples-to-apples, and yes
    that item has to do with child care.  They are (in committee) changing
    the childcare numbers as we speak.
    
    You are correct - administrative and preparation costs are counted in
    the cost of all these meals, just as at McDonalds.  There ain't no way
    to know how much of a frenchfry is administrative.  There are no budget
    savings (alas) in the Republican school lunch block grants,
    administrative or not.
    
    There will be a zero-out, or close to it, in cash payments to non-self-
    supporting teenage mothers, but a (smaller) increase in daycare costs,
    including food.  In theory, the cocaine mother will have to bag
    groceries or flip burgers for her fix, but the gets part of it back
    in institutional childcare.  The funding numbers are coming in the
    Welfare Reform Act, being revised now.
    
    As usual, passage in the House for all this is a foregone conclusion.
    But it will be fillibustered away in the Senate by the Democrats.
    
      bb

    >to say nothing of the egregiously liberal donald kaul.
        
    Mr Egregious had a column discussing the virtues expected in a
    president this past Sunday.  Guess what?  He came up with a Republican
    running for president that met the criteria.  I only skimmed it *very*
    briefly, but he seemed to be praising Dick Lugar.
    
    DougO

    > You ready to admit that the Repub plan will INCREASE the funds yet,
    > Doug?
    
    You haven't answered Mr Bill's numbers, yet, have you Mike?  Tell me,
    which media are feeding *you* "lies"?
    
    Careful with that rhetoric, Eugene.
    
    DougO

    > The math should be fairly simple...
    >
    >                        250,000
    >                        ------- = 3,571.43
    >                          70
    >
    > This means that 1 in 3,571 households called this woman...
    
    What fools these mortals be.  Jack, one, they didn't call her, they
    called the office of the Mercury News.  Two, the MN is a local paper,
    whereas Rush has a national audience.  Your silly ratio doesn't correct
    for the bias either way; either you should extrapolate from the 70
    calls the MN received to estimate how many calls were recieved at each
    paper that ran the school lunch stories, and use the total; or you
    should correct the base of Rush's listenership down from the population
    of the entire country to the population in San Jose.  Either might make
    your number vaguely worth discussing.  Absent that, you simply show
    your inability to understand "simple math", and your number is
    meaningless.
    
    DougO

    > I was amazed that she wasted a whole article on bashing people.  I
    > think she was intellectually dishonest, describing all Ditto-heads as
    > being mindless parrots due to a few calls.  I wonder if her
    > defensiveness comes from knowing that the "liberal media" is in fact
    > being dishonest about the lunch program.
        
    A few calls?  70 calls from people who haven't even READ what the
    newspaper actually printed, as was obvious from their inability to
    discuss it?  This was demagogic harassment, Rush siccing the dittoheads
    at the newspapers who dare to tell another side of a story.  I wonder
    at you, Leech, I really do; defending the moronic callers who couldn't
    civilly discuss their disagreements with the newspaper staffers because
    THEY HADN'T EVEN READ THE ARTICLES.
    
    DougO

    Oh, I'm sorry Doug...I forgot.  You're smart and I'm stupid because I
    don't think like you do!
    
    -Jack

    
    There was an interesting hour + by Greenough on CSPAN over the weekend.
    Greenough was the "independent" student of these food programs who
    was appointed by Clinton to the now-defunct "entitlements commission".
    He has much higher credibility with me because he runs for no office,
    supports no parties, and has proven credible in the past.  He said the
    increase in the Republican plan will likely turn out to be less than
    if we keep this as an entitlement - it depends on inflation
    assumptions.  The GOP built in a 2% rise over time, lower than the 3+ %
    which is historically accurate.  But he said the funding changes are so
    minor nobody will notice these in practice, given OTHER problems in the
    change, not related to funding levels, which do not change dramatically
    in any event.  Among his points :
    
      (1)  The "aliens don't count" block-grant scoring mechanism will be
          very difficult for schools to administer.
      (2)  The apportionment of the block grant moneys will have an odd
          effect of encouraging "browsing" - your local unit gets a bigger
          grant the more meals served to the needy, not the more money
          spent.  So some schools may opt for "two snacks" instead of
          "one lunch".
      (3)  Since this will now be an appropriation instead of an
          entitlement, the government will have to act nimbly if it is
          to serve its current "economic stabilizer" role.  In recessions,
          how do you increase funding ?  In booms, how do you reduce it ?
          It is problematic that Congress will be able to do this, leaving
          that problem to the states.
       (4) The states are getting a bum rap in general by the opponents.
          They are quite capable of admistering the programs.  In fact,
          they will probably do better at it than the feds.
    
       He spent quite some time ripping to shreds both the Gingrich 4.5%
      number, and the admistration counterclaim (a la Mr. Bill) that this
      is a cut.  He pretty much said both those claims are pure politics.
    
       I found the show enlightening.  At the end, he said all this pales
      beside the foodstamp changes proposed, which are a real cut and will
      be very harsh on the nonworking poor if they remain as they are.
    
       bb

    re: .272
    
    Who said I was defending the callers? (I'm not)  I was merely
    commenting on an entire article of "get-evenism".  She was obviously
    disturbed at the stupid calls, and thus felt it necessary to bash
    them (and all Ditto-heads by association) publically as a form of
    retribution (IMO).
    
    Perhaps she is mistaken about the source of the calls, as well as the
    identity of the callers?  How does she *know* who the callers were
    (they left no names or details, just a generic "stop lying"), or does
    she just assume who they were to give her an excuse to bash those known
    to be politically opposed to her views?
    
    If she was truthful about the calls, the callers acted like idiots. 
    However, was this good enough excuse to waste an entire article bashing
    these poeple, or would it be better to just let it go for the sake of
    journalistic integrity (in case she was wrong about the identity of the
    callers)?
    
    
    -steve 

    Re: .259, .260
    
    Perhaps you missed the part where she made it clear that not all Rush
    fans are "Dittoheads."

RE: .276

	All Rush Limbaugh fans are defined as Dittoheads.  Some are
just more intelligent than others.

ME

                                                        
    The most intelligent Dittoheads begin their calls with one of:
    
    	"Micro-dittos" "Nano-dittos" "Pico-dittos".
    
    ----
    
    And having lost the debate about is this or is this not a cut, Braucher
    folds with the "but but but it's not much of a cut."
    
|   He said the increase in the Republican plan will likely turn out to be
|   *LESS* [emphasis mine] than if we keep this as an entitlement - it
|   depends on inflation assumptions.  But he said the funding changes
|   are so minor nobody will notice these in practice, given OTHER problems
|   in the change, not related to funding levels, which do not change
|   dramatically in any event.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Whatever, Mr. Bill.  You should check.  The Republicans did not in fact
    propose to replace the expenditures you listed in .261 totalling
    $8.155B as an entitlement with a block grant to the states for the
    same items of $6.681B.  You knew that when you posted it.
    
    In fact, no percentage comparison of an entitlement with a block grant
    can be accurate - they are different things.  But the block grant for
    the same things does in fact increase over this year's actual
    expenditures both the next two years.
    
    Your numbers are misleading.  bb

    
    re: .252
    
  >  A FUNNY THING happened here at ``liberal media'' headquarters last
  >  week. Editors and reporters at the Mercury News were bombarded with
  >  about 70 messages from indignant radio listeners who snarled into our
  >  phone mail: ``Stop lying about the school lunch program!'' Then they
  >  hung up.

    so, what was the source of the rest of the information in the article?
    if all of the people who left voice mail said the same thing and hung
    up, as stated above, then from what was the rest of the article drawn?
    
    
    bill

                                                                
   On March 10, 1995, Your half-his-brain-tied-behind-his-back
   most exhalted leader said:
   
   	People should call their local newspaper, their local TV
   	stations, NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, Time,
   	Newsweek, and all the rest. They should not be contentious,
   	provocative, brash, or rude, but they should demand "stop lying
   	about the school lunch program. Thank you." Then hang up and
   	let the media figure it out.
   
   								-mr. bill

   
   Well, I will admit it, I was dramatically mistaken yesterday.  Those
   damn day care lunches just snuck in there.  So, my numbers were a
   bit off.
   
   But not much.
   
   So I made some phone calls and cranked some numbers to see just exactly
   what the Republicans and Rush were up to.
   
   
   It's real simple.  So I'll keep it real simple.
   
   THEY LIE.
   
   
   
   "The president proposed 3.1%"  "His budget is 3.1%"  "We are 4.5%."
   
   Let's start with lie 1.  The president proposed 3.1%.  Where does that
   number come from?  It comes from a two numbers, from a single line.
   From the President's budget, look up line 00.91 "Subtotal, school
   lunch...."  The Republicans took ACTUAL spending for FY94 and the
   EXPECTED spending for FY95, and came up with a "percent difference"
   of 3.1%.
   
   The President, for this specific line item, proposed for FY96 a 3.7%
   increase.  Oh, but wait a second, that's still less than the Republicans
   4.5% increase for next year, isn't it?
   
   Which brings us to lie #2.  The Republican "grant" contains money
   for the following items in the President's budget:
   
   	Line 00.91, school lunch
   	Line 01.91, school breakfast
   	Line 3.01, summer feeding
   	Line 3.02, special milk program
   	Line 3.03, state admin expenses
   	Line 3.04, commodity procurement
   
   (The Republicans also give the states flexibility to take up to 20%
   of the money from these programs and put them toward other programs
   that the Republicans are cutting more drastically, such as day care
   lunches etc etc etc....)
   
   Adding it all together, the President estimates a 4.4% increase in
   FY95 and PROPOSES a (drum roll please) 5.1% increase for FY96.
   
   								-mr. bill

    
    Mr. Bill, Mr. Bill - yes, depending on the economic forecasts, the
    entitlement CAN be more, and CAN be less, than the block grant.
    
    And the entitlement has the advantage, as I admit, of stabilizing.
    
    That said, there isn't any real "cut" going on here.  That was my only
    point.  Why harp on this, when the Republicans slash $60B in the
    welfare reform block grant.
    
    A block-granted hot dog tastes exactly the same as an entitlement
    hotdog, particularly with mustard.  If I had {shudder} you guys
    agenda, I'd worry more about the aliens provision, not the funding.
    
      bb

   Here we are talking about the dittoheads.
   
   Here we are talking about One Rush Limbaugh screaming that the press
   lies.
   
   Here we are talking about numbers of Newtniks taking to the floor of the
   house and screaming that the press lies.
   
   
   BOTTOM LINE - Rush lies.  The Newtniks lie.
   
   								-mr. bill

    Mr. Bill:
    
    Regardless, cuts hurt...and they hurt somebody.  We'll
    survive...okay!?  They did it during the depression, we can do it now.
    
    I'm just waiting for the day dear ole mother n law moves back into my
    house when her social security gets cut.  It's my personal
    responsibility to take care of the orphan and the widow.
    
    -Jack

   
   If you rejoice in the cuts, why do you insist that they are not cuts?
   
   								-mr. bill

>   If you rejoice in the cuts, why do you insist that they are not cuts?

It can not be a cut, because the spending will INCREASE. Can you get it
thru that skull of yours??? The money going to the school lunch program
INCREASES from past years... maybe the money going to federal admin costs
decreases (i hope) but the actual money will INCREASE over last year.
It it therefore NOT A CUT!!! 

The spending INCREASES... therefore it is NOT A CUT!!!

If you think it's a cut, please give me your definition of a cut, please.
I'll get a good laugh out of it.

Myself - I'd cut every federal program, every single one, by some % which
would cut the federal deficit in half. Then freeze spending for 3 years.
Then do another cut to balance the budget. Then freeze spending for 3
more years. Also I'd give a tax break at the start of these cuts, and then
not allow any tax increases during the 6 years.

that's why I'd do... everyone gets hit, it's all fair. We go through 6 years
of some hard times, but we end up the better for it.

ALL of us need to sacrifice if we want to have any viable future... this
includes school lunch programs, the military, medicare, PBS, NASA, etc.,
etc., etc.

but NOOOOOOOoooooooo... we have a country full of cry babies who expect the
government to fix all our problems and have a balanced budget w/o affecting
them personally...

If I was old enough - I'd run for president...

/scott

    Mr. Bill:
    
    What I would really like to see is a candidate get up there (either
    party) and proclaim, "For the next four years we are going to eat
    spinach.  After that we can think of desert!  Walter Mondale threatened
    tax hikes and that's what killed him in 86.  Reason being is that
    Reagans tax cut brought more money into the United States Treasury than
    and previous administration in the recent past.  I still believe tax
    cuts will bring more money than tax hikes.  But I would like to see
    massive cuts across the board...yes, even if it means my own job here
    at DEC....which it probably will!
    
    -jACK

re: Marison
   
|The spending INCREASES... therefore it is NOT A CUT!!!
   
   Can you repeat that a few more times?
   
re: JMartin
   
|  I still believe tax cuts will bring more money than tax hikes.
   
   I stopped believing in magic dust and tooth faries a long time ago.
   
   								-mr. bill

    
    >I stopped believing in magic dust and tooth faries a long time ago.
    
    If only you could convince the Clinton administration of that too!!
    

>|The spending INCREASES... therefore it is NOT A CUT!!!
>   
>   Can you repeat that a few more times?
   
As long as you and others say the republicans are cutting the school lunch
program, I will keep saying it...

What's your definition of a cut, anyways???

/scott

    How did all that money get into the treasury in 1986 Mr. Bill?
    
    -Jack

    
    re, .286 - I think that Gingrich & co have, in fact, fudged the
    claim of a "4.5% increase".  It is another example of over-reaction
    to drastically overblown charges from their opponents on the school
    lunch issue.  I have no proof of this, but the "defensive lies" are
    arising in response to the incredible falsehoods, spoken with a
    straight face, by the Democrats, and by the tension after the defeat
    of the BBA.
    
      Go back a bit.  Gingrich tells Goodling, a decent enough guy, 25+
    year Pa. Congresscritter now (finally) chairman to go off and turn the
    school lunch program (created as an unfunded mandate in 1946, and a
    funded entitlement late sixties) into a block grant to the states,
    making it as revenue neutral as possible.  The committee goes off and
    basically rearranges the same money for the same hamburgers and comes
    out with a bill.  Lunches are easy to administer, and the bill has as
    many oversight provisions as the entitlement, or even more.  Surely
    they can't screw up burger flipping at the state level ?  A surefire
    win for "the new federalism", right ?  Republicanism without the pain.
    
      So what do the Democrats do ?  They engage in some of the wierdest
    pieces of misleading propaganda politics ever.  They claim whilst
    ringing their hands and tearing their hair, if any, that Newt the Blue
    Meanie will turn our high schools into Rwanda, the bloated malnutritted
    corpses of the students starved to death, baking in the schoolyard sun.
    Blah, blah, blah.  But it's the same money !  The Republicans are
    cutting everywhere else they can, and they are getting bashed for the
    one thing the DIDN'T do !
    
      So Newt doctors some figures to claim he actually increased the
    program from the projections.  It is a case of throwing in the towel
    on truth.  OK, you wanna play lies, we'll play lies.  Personally,
    I wish he hadn't.
    
      I don't know this, but that's my guess.
    
      bb

    >But it's the same money!
    
    What about that 20% the states are allowed to reallocate at whim?
    The cut-that-is-plausibly-deniable-cause-the-states-are-the-bad-guys.
    
    Block grants aren't the same.  I'm not arguing against them, but the
    storm arising from the school lunch bill has this big hole in it.
    
    DougO

    I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh while channel-surfing last night.
    Some high-mucky-muck from some Democratic organization (perhaps
    the Dem National Committee) was making a public speech that was
    surprisingly critical of Clintoon and almost threatening (i.e.
    if he didn't get his act together, he's out).  The guy's voice
    was shaking... I couldn't tell if it was out of fear of public
    speaking, nervousness about the content of his speech, or anger.
    
    Did anyone else see this?... Who was that guy?
    
    Chris

    I saw that.  Can't remember his name but it came right after the
    election in November.  He was from an organization that supported
    centrist Democrats...of which Bill Clinton was a member.  He was
    stating the reason for the loss in November was Clinton himself,
    kissing up to the liberals.
    
    -Jack

    HUTCHISON: Dittoheads weigh in; Lefties expected soon
    
    By Sue Hutchison
    
    GEE, WAS IT something I said? All I did was complain about a cadre of
    Rush Limbaugh fans who made snarling, anonymous phone calls to
    the Mercury News a few weeks ago, and now I feel like Salman Rushdie.
    
    I had the temerity to observe that few callers knew what the heck they
    were talking about when they told us, ``Stop lying about the school
    lunch program!''
    
    I may not agree with much of the neoconservative agenda, but that's not
    what I was ridiculing. I wasn't debating the school lunch program,
    either. (But I did receive excruciatingly detailed descriptions of the
    Republican plan -- of course, not from anyone who claimed to be one of
    the anonymous callers.) I was simply lamenting that a growing group of
    utterly ignorant and hostile citizens feels as qualified to engage in
    political debate as the informed citizens who sent me hate mail.
    
    Ironically, the Dittoheads who are after my hide may soon be joined by
    equally dedicated liberals, ticked off about a column I wrote on the
    Peninsula Peace & Justice Center. But it's worth the sacrifice if it
    means Dittoheads and Lefties can join hands and sing ``Kumbaya'' after
    putting my head on a pike.
    
    "IT'S DIFFICULT to describe my joy in reading how upset you liberals
    become when anyone dares to challenge such obviously enlightened,
    omnipotent ``newspapers.'' . . . Try not to be so arrogant -- it really
    annoys those of us who know how stupid you really are.
    
    "WJ Ecklund"
    
    Imagine my relief when I discovered this letter was not signed by my
    parents.
    
    "I guess you think it's fair to classify all Dittoheads as ``outraged
    and aggressively ignorant.'' . . . You appear to have blond hair. Are
    you a ``dizzy bimbo''?
    
    "David Fisher
    Palo Alto"
    
    (Well, not all Dittoheads.) And Kato Kaelin and I resent that ``blond''
    remark! But, uh, regarding ``dizziness'': If anyone sent me e-mail
    entries for the ``Re-name Palo Alto's Black & White Ball Contest,''
    could you send them again? I lost the list.
    
    "THOUGH I find Rush Limbaugh very entertaining, I certainly don't accept
    everything he says uncritically. I try to independently verify the
    facts.
    
    "Mike Van Pelt
    San Jose"
    
    Hey, hallelujah! And being able to parrot master Limbaugh's facts would
    be a good start for some people. One of my colleagues was
    dismayed when she asked an anonymous caller, ``Well sir, what do you
    think is the truth about the school lunch program?'' The response:
    Total silence, followed by a click and dial tone.
    
    Many callers said they hadn't even read our stories. If they had they
    might have agreed with some readers who were spittin' mad at me but
    still thought Mercury News coverage of the school lunch issue had been
    fair.
    
    "By taking pot shots at the callers, you have brought yourself to their
    level of intelligence.
    
    "Antone Zeuli
    Newark"
    
    Well, I must concede that point. But it felt so good, it was scary. Let
    this be a lesson to us all.
    
    Write Sue Hutchison at the Mercury News, 310 University Ave., Palo
    Alto, Calif. 94301; fax (415) 688-7555
    
    Published 3/27/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.

    
    no suprise here.

    So it is now NEOconservatives?  She tries to come across as a victim,
    but diggs right in with her broad brush once more.

    And while I'm here...SNARF!

    >So it is now NEOconservatives?
    
    Why no.  She said she wasn't even talking about them.  She was
    writing about content-free complainers, who called only because
    Rush told them to, not because they had anything intelligent to
    contribute, to recommend to the newspaper.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 84.301 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

    	So what shall we say of people who repost all of Sue Hutchenson's
    	content-free complaints without having anything intelligent of
    	their own to contribute...

>>    	So what shall we say of people who repost all of Sue Hutchenson's
>>    	content-free complaints without having anything intelligent of
>>    	their own to contribute...

	Why does somebody have to contribute anything more than an article?
	It was interesting reading and I appreciate the fact that Dougo
	bothered to post it.

    but it blasphemes one of the sacred icons of neoconservatism, and
    whacko rightness!
    
    Quel shock!
    
    meg

>    but it blasphemes one of the sacred icons of neoconservatism, and
>    whacko rightness!

So is this the new spin word to be used on conservatives/republicans?

			NEOCONSERVATISM

???

/scott

    My conservative mother says that rush, and his followers who believe he
    is serious, are not the conservatives she grew up with, and she
    considers herself a conservative.  (she is compared to me)  they are
    embracing the label conservative without the appropriate practice of
    same.
    
    government off our backs, as long as I can put it in the bladders,
    uteruses, bedrooms, and gun cabinets of the people. 
    
    I translate this to gevernemnt off the backs of corporate amerika and
    the wealthy, but stick it to the underlings.
    
    meg
    
    Not a neo-conservativbe, even if I am an honorary RRW.

>    government off our backs, as long as I can put it in the bladders,
>    uteruses, bedrooms, and gun cabinets of the people. 
>    
>    I translate this to gevernemnt off the backs of corporate amerika and
>    the wealthy, but stick it to the underlings.

Oh ya - I wanna stick it to those underlings (hey - but I'm an underling!
I'm sure as hell ain't corporate america or wealthy!!!)

Ya. right.

NOT!!!

Meg - you are so off base...

/scott

>    government off our backs, as long as I can put it in the bladders,
>    uteruses, bedrooms, and gun cabinets of the people. 

Bladders?

 that made me go "hunh?" too. ;>

    No neoconservative has ever expressed interest in my bladder.
    In fact, no one by my physician and his nurse have expressed
    any interest, and I'm unaware of their political proclivities.
    My bladder remains somewhat enigmatic and free-spirited, as
    organs go...

    -b

   "When you finish with the jar, leave it in the cabinet in the bathroom."
   
   								-mr. bill

	ah.

    Maybe bladders is a reference to drug testing. 

    I was thinking that too!

    Bingo!!
    
    You get the prize.  

	mr. bill gets the prize.

    RE: The prize
    
    ... a sheep's bladder condom, no doubt.
    
    -b

    
    Govt. interest in our bladders is not a conservative issue...
    Clinton admin. has urged the SC Justices to allow drug tests
    for student athletes in schools were drug use is "deemed" a problem.
    
    Breyer also seems to favor it, based on his questions during
    the case involving an Oregon student.

    FWIW,
    
    I don't consider BC to be a champion of the Bill of Rights either.  

    Why are people hollering like stuck pigs about the term
    "neoconservative"?  Its been in common use to discuss the new right
    movement ever since the beginning of the Reagan decade.  I used to read
    the National Review and neocons self-described that way; Jack Kemp,
    even Newtie were described as neocons, back in the 80s.
    
    I think you people fussing at the term are simply ill-informed about
    the roots of the movement you think you're so proud of.
    
    DougO

    I have an idea!  Why don't we call people "neoconservatives" and
    "neoliberals"?  Then, after a while, some neoboxers will post
    neoreplies questioning the neoidiocy of sticking neogratuitous
    neoprefixes on neowords, and drop the whole neostupid neopractice.
    
    

    
    neoneat idea, Mike.......

    was that a *squeeeeeeeeeeal* I just heard?
    
    DougO

    	Does Rush Limbaugh have a published internet address?

Rush Limbaugh Show                      70277.2502@compuserve.com
 

    No squeals here.  Haven't read much of this note at all, just happened
    to notice a stupid word.

Neoconservatives differ from conservatives in that they are selective in
their belief in limited government.

Neoconservatives believe that the government should stay outta the
affairs of businesses except to subsidize their industries.

Neoconservatives believe that the government should get outta the lives
of the individual except when they legislate morality.

Neoconservatives believe in states rights except when they pass laws that
supercede states rights in issues such as tort reform, term limits, etc.

The Contract on/for America is about 50-50 Conservative and Liberal. I
guess that's the basis for the current neoconservatives.

TTom

    Ah, I think I'm starting to understand.  "Real" conservatives know
    about "neo" conservatives and think they're scum.  "Real" conservatives
    think everybody else must know the "neos" are scum too, so when Sue
    Hutchinsen uses the "neo" term as a catchall to describe the new right,
    "real" conservatives are insulted; they're not scummy "neos", they're,
    well, "resurgent original REAL" conservatives, and Hutchinsen is scum
    not to know better.
    
    Thanks, guys.  Now I understand the squealing.
    
    DougO

    Well, I'm scratching my head a bit here. First, it seemed obvious
    that the use of neoconservative in this thread was intended to
    be a put down.

    So, the conservatives ask for a definition, one is given, many
    conservatives (including myself) don't agree with the positions
    stated as being "neoconservative", we state the fact that we
    don't agree, and we're told we're whining... because we won't
    fess up and admit we like something that we really don't.

    I guess I'm just doomed to stay lost here...

    Carry on.

    -b

    > First, it seemed obvious that the use of neoconservative in this
    > thread was intended to be a put down.
    
    Where?  Hutchinsen used it to say she wasn't even talking about the
    neoconservative agenda.  That simply doesn't sound insulting to me,
    I've heard the term neoconservative used many times before and it is
    simply an adjective.  But someone in here started squealing, I think it
    was Leech.  Why?  How is it a putdown?
    
    DougO

Maybe the squealers think they've got the old-time religion, and referring
to it as "neo-" contradicts that.

    neosnarf...

    .Hutchinsen
    
     Hutchison

    If I squeal, then I am a conservative.  I don't think I'm conservative,
    but I have been accused of squealing.  The Neoconservative thing sounds
    pretty weird, and since I am very consistent in my views, I don't think
    I qualify.  Thus, in the box here, I guess I am a squealer without a
    label to identify myself.
    
    Ergo, I must be a new kind of squealer.  Perhaps - dare I say it? - a
    
    				NEOSQUEALER!

    
    Well, I've reached the age where I'd be glad to be a neo-anything.
    
    Alas, I'm a paleoscreamer, I fear, since I've hated the growth of
    government since before St. Barry Goldwater...
    
      bb

    I notice Rush has been touting the "Contract with America".  Not
    surprising really because he's a republican mouthpiece.
    
    Anyways, the past 2 days (at least) he's been beefing about taxes
    and how the repubs can fix it if everyone listens to them and been 
    slamming the dems for pissing away money like it grows on trees (or 
    magically prints out at the U.S. Mint).
    
    I'd like to see Rush get out his copy of the Constitution he's got
    on the floor of his sets lavatory and detail to the people how
    the tax system is voluntatily, how it can legally be ignored, and
    how congress could legally fix it.  Good gawd y'all that would bung
    up his buddies agenda too.
    
    Sad thing is, this week is "college week".  Nice College kids studying
    liberal arts, partying, sociology, or basket weaving sitting in the
    audience going "woo woo woo woo" ala Arsihole Hall.  

    Re: 337
    
    I'm not sure where you were going with your entry, but you made
    reference to how rush feels about taxes, and since you seem to take him
    to task about this, I assume you are opposed to the tax reductions the
    GOP is proposing.
    
    It seems as if you, as well as others, forget one simple point.  Taxes
    take money, that I earned, from me and my family.  I beleive that I
    certtainly can demand that the absolute minimum required be removed
    from my pocket.  that minimum being the bare essential required to
    allow this govenment to function for it's original purpose.  this does
    not include every social program imaginable, whether it works or not.
    
    Taxes are my money and I should have the ability to demand that I keep
    as much as is possible.  Anyone who wants to give more tot he
    government is free to do so, but they do not have the right to tell me
    that I should also.
    

re: Note 84.338 by POBOX::ROCUSH
    
>    I'm not sure where you were going with your entry, but you made
>    reference to how rush feels about taxes, and since you seem to take him
>    to task about this, 

I do. 

>I assume you are opposed to the tax reductions the
>    GOP is proposing.

Hell no, I'll take 'em if they give em.  Personally I try to exploit absolutely
every (legal) hole in the system so I can stay _in_ the system, not have to 
watch my back for the rest of my life, yet still keep as much $$$ in my 
pocket as possible.
    
>    It seems as if you, as well as others, forget one simple point.  Taxes
>    take money, that I earned, from me and my family.  I beleive that I
>    certtainly can demand that the absolute minimum required be removed
>    from my pocket. 

I know, rush knows too.  They spin the issue differently than "liberals"
who want to take your money and give it to people who want to sit on their
arse all day and make babys all night.  Of course I'm not a liberal, nor
am I a conservative.  I'm one of those American kinda guys.  My point was, 
I wish Rush looked in depth at the issue of taxation, not just how the repubs 
want to take _less_ of your money which is certainly better than the dems, 
but how did we get from "point A to point B" and how are we going to fix it?  
Why not  expose the IRS for being a bunch of goose-stepping yahoo's who are 
way out of line?  

> that minimum being the bare essential required to
>    allow this govenment to function for it's original purpose.  this does
>    not include every social program imaginable, whether it works or not.
    
The federal governments lawful authority to tax is clearly defined.
Rush whoops up "welfare reform" too.  C'mon rush, what *IS* welfare?
Not this socialist BS that's currently going on.  I think if Rush had
the balls to "spill the beans" congress would have no choice but to
reform the system.  Rather than having people quietly bail out left and
right, which, IMO is the real reason why they're looking for a "overhaul"
of the tax system, why not blow the horn big time on the deal?  How many 
folks listen/watch him.  Hell, I do to occasionally but I take what he says 
with a grain of salt along with what I hear elsewhere.

>    Taxes are my money and I should have the ability to demand that I keep

taxes are the governments money that _used_ to be YOUR money. 
You've so graciously volunteered to send the fed some of your sweat and
toil and beurocrats get to dole it out to someone else and look like
heros.  Sounds like BS to me.  Now you know why you used to have to
be a freeholder to vote, so nobody could vote themselves a handout.  Our 
country seemed to operate fine prior to enacting a "personal income tax".  
What happened?  A republican "tax cut" while a nice thing to have, doesn't 
deal with the fact that they're still pulling your chain.  I'll bet a bunch 
of people are reading this right now, and they're just quietly smiling.  If 
"everyone" knows it, why do "we" continue to put up with it?  Why doesn't
a big-mouth like Rush zero in on this deal rather than tease folks?

MadMike

    Re: 339
    Thanks for the clarification.
    
    I agree totally that the entire system needs to be overhauled from top
    to bottom.  they need to start with every government program and gut it
    or eliminate it unless it is absolutely required for the defense of the
    country.
    
    I beleive the political reality is that no matter how many people feel
    that the tax rates are too high, government too big and too intrusive,
    they will be unwilling to make a drastic move ot eliminate this monster
    in one action.  That is why I agree with the Republican contract and
    Rush's actions.  We need to get the dialogue going and get some
    initial changes made.  Once the boogeymen of increasing deficits and
    people dying in the streets is eliminated, then we can continue to
    reduce and cut, but we need to make the first step.  I beleive that
    this is only a first step.
    
    I don't agree with everything that Rush puts out, but on average I tend
    to beleive what he says as opposed to anything coming out of the
    Democratic side.  He needs to continue his attacks on government taxes
    and spending and hold Republicans accountable for reducing government
    further.  If he becomes complacent on this, then I will need to
    re-evaluate my assessment of him.
    
    Thanks again.
     

    I disagree about the system needing to be overhauled.
    
    I think it should be hauled over.  Or is that heaved over?  Is there a
    sailor in the house?

    Well it's heeling over...

    looks more like listing to me....

    	Didn't Rush get some award for being the talkradio host of the
    	year or something like that?

    
    Yep, just recently voted "best talkshow host on the air" or something
    like that.
    
    jeff

    Or something like that, more likely  "best talkshow host full of hot air"
    
    Brian

    
    If I understand last night correctly, Rush Limbaugh charged Hubble
    with telling an anti-Semitic joke.  He bases this accusation on
    testimony Hubble gave before the WACO panel.  He accuses Hubble of
    speaking in code since, according to Rush, "pushy New York Lawyer"
    decodes to "Jewish Lawyer".
    
    Your guess is as good as mine if Rush thinks this is true (it isn't)
    or if Rush thinks that making the charge is good entertainment.
    
    Your guess is as good as mine if Rush thinks the committee members
    laughed at an anti-Semitic joke (they did laugh, it was not
    anti-Semitic) or he thinks implying they did is good entertainment.
    
    (For background, Robertson has been recently accused of being an
    anti-Semite.  Among other things, Robertson has changed "Jewish
    European Banker" to "European Banker" in his conspiracy book.
    Perhaps Rush, in his dis-entertaining manner, might be trying to
    draw a parallel of sorts.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    mr bill, I believe what Rush said was that "some people" would say that
    Hubble was using a code for Jewish.  This I believe was an allusion to
    the famous quote from a democrat that equated "nigger" with "lets cut
    spending" or something to that effect.  I don't remember the politicians
    quote exactly.

    In no way was Rush promoting anti-Semitism based on this.  This is not
    what was indicated by what Colin posted.

    Dan

    
      I don't watch RL, nor listen to Hubble, and I don't care about
     this topic much, but I'm getting very peeved with the whole USA
     for establishing codewords without telling me.  Several times
     lately, I've been told I'd used a code, when I had no idea I was
     doing so.  Not only do you have to watch what you say, but even
     that isn't good enough.  Now, I don't deny there really must be
     codes used by the left and right.  But I'm sorry to say, I don't
     know where to look them up.  Is there a reliable reference ?
    
      bb
    

    I believe that what Dan means is that some people might think that
    there is a possibility that Rush has a better ability than the rest of
    us to detect the potential use of code language in what other people
    say.  In no way was I inferring that Rush would grasp an opportunity
    to put words in other people's mouths.
    
    Colin

    Huh?

    Huh?

    "Some people" would not say that somebody who says "pushy New York
    Lawyer" meant "Jewish Lawyer."
    
    Rush made that up.
    
    I've heard New Yorkers (who should know better) say "I'll run that by
    my Jew," where the context determines if they are talking about
    their lawyer or their accountant.
    
    I've heard no New Yorker (anti-Semite or not) refer to Jews as
    "pushy New York lawyers."
    
    								-mr. bill

    Huh?

Alan Dershowitz would probably agree with Rush.  He's hypersensitive to
anti-Semitic code words.

    
      So let's see.
    
      "pushy lawyer" = "Jew" ?  "Cut spending" = "Hate blacks" ?
    
      What are some of the others ?  bb
    

    Huh?

 Eh?

    Beverly?

    
    This morning Rush, for his promo, defined "kook."
    It was a 20 point definition.  If you agree with *any* of the 20
    points, you *are* a kook.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 84.360 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>    This morning Rush, for his promo, defined "kook."
>    It was a 20 point definition.  If you agree with *any* of the 20
>    points, you *are* a kook.

Yah, and the irate "kooks" were on the phone about 60 seconds later...
I suspect he lost more than that one guy.

Call me a kook, but I'm keeping an open mind on a couple of his listed
subjects. It's naive to scoff just because something "sounds nutty", just as
it's naive to believe everything you hear or read.

    
    Agreed, Tom.  I didn't say yes to any of them, but I didn't say no to
    all of them either.
    
    
    Mike

William,
   It was nine points. Not twenty.

Here it is, the abbreviated Rush "Kook list"... he just repeated it...

1. Is there a world conspiracy to destroy the USA?
2. Is "new world order" a secret phrase used by one-worlders to ID each
   other?
3. Is Federal Reserve a front for a plot to destroy the economy of the USA?
4. Is eye on the pyramid on the back of a dollar bill a secret code of the
   NWO?
5. Do David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Zbig. Brezinsky(sp), Jimmy Carter,
   Tom Brokaw provide written instructions to the US gov't?
6. Are the "CFR" and the "TC" front groups to train NWO and one-worlders?
7. Was trilateral commission formed because common folks discoverd the CFR
   plot?
8. Was Mark Furman paid by OJ?
9. Was feminist movement started by David Rockefeller to distract us from the
   NWO conspiracy?
10. Does trancendental meditation have the purpose of putting us to sleep at
    likely times of enemy attack?
11. Is the Proctor&Gamble logo the sign of the beast?

    
    	Did Rush write that list, or was it Mr. Bill?
    

Er, Rush wrote it.
He (Rush) is having a good rant at a "kook" caller right now...

    Ohmi God, even Rush is on the take now.

Rush added 10 and 11 during the broadcast. The first 9 were all that were
on the promo, and the ones that he mentioned earlier in today's broadcast.

    
    TTWA:
    
    If noters in ::DIGITAL will come over here to discuss Rush 
    now that their rathole has been write-locked?
    
    :^)
    

    re: .370
    
    I was mighty tempted to point them here, but...
    
    Bob

    
    
    I was going to write you and ask you where the, "Take it to Soapbox"
    was, Bob.  :')
    
    
    Mike

    
      Well, from a practical point of view, why should Digital place
     ads in ANY controversial place ?  I think there is a distinction
     between saturation coverage for Pepsi-Cola ("advertise everywhere,
     often") and a maker of equipment selling for thousands of dollars.
     You want to instill trust, the impression of level-headed, staid
     reasonableness, as well as good technology.  I wouldn't do ads on
     any talk shows.
    
      bb

    From the amount of talk that the ads generated I think that they made a
    pretty good choice.  Obviously lots of people who work at Digital
    listen to talk radio, probably lots of people at other high tech
    companies listen to talk radio as well.  Therefore it is a very good
    place to advertise.
    
    --Geoff

>   Therefore it is a very good place to advertise.

    I suppose one could also point out that people who froth at the mouth
    against the guy don't listen to his program and therefore wouldn't hear
    the ads.

    -- Dave

    That is true, but the ads don't only run during Rush's show.  They are
    WRKO ads and I've heard them throughout several different programs on
    that station.
    
    --Geoff

>    That is true, but the ads don't only run during Rush's show.  They are
>    WRKO ads and I've heard them throughout several different programs on
>    that station.

    Being on the left coast, I haven't heard that station.  Is Limbaugh's
    voice being used in the ads or how does one tie them to Limbaugh when
    listening to a different program on the same station?

    -- Dave

        <<< Note 84.377 by HIGHD::FLATMAN "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund" >>>
    
	The ads do not use Rush's voice.  The ads were equated with Rush
    because people heard them during the timeslot when Rush's show is
    syndicated on WRKO, a local (Boston) talk radio station.
    
    	I've heard the Digital ads during Rush's time slot as well as other
    time slots on this very popular radio station.
    
    --Geoff

    I never listen to Rush (Personally, I can't stand the guy), but I have
    heard the commercials for digital on the L.A. broadcast of the Tom
    Leykis show.
    
    

>    heard the commercials for digital on the L.A. broadcast of the Tom
>    Leykis show.

    Which station?

Ah - Tom Leykis! The wife beater that got run out of Boston talk-radio
on a rail!

How's he doing on the left coast?

    I never listen to Rush (Personally, I can't stand the guy),
    
    Typical Rush critic.  Can't stand him but never listens to him.
    I get annoyed as his comments on peoples looks.  He made remarks about
    the Postal worker wearing the dress and the guerilla mask, then asked
    if he was trying to do an imitation of Patsy Schroeder.  I find this 
    to put him in the same low rent category as Clintons cabinet...and I
    don't think he needs to be there!
    
    -Jack

    
    > I never listen to Rush (Personally, I can't stand the guy)....
    
    Wait a minute, how do you know that you "can't stand the guy" if you
    don't know what he's said? (i.e."never listen to Rush")
    

    
    
    So, Jack knows Rush personally, eh?
    

    
    	Well, Dan, if Jack had said "I've never listened to the guy" then
    	you'd have reason to correct his grammar.
    
    	But he didn't.  He said "I never listen to Rush".
    

RE: 84.382 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

I used to listen to Rush.  He makes Clinton look like a class act.  Of
course,  he would make Bozo look like a class act.


Phil

    
    <-------
    
    I gather that Rush is an entertainer, whereas Clinton is a politi....
    
    er.... never mind...
    

    OK, I wrote it in a hurry.  Every now and then I DO listen to Rush to
    see if my ability to swallow his load of bull has gotten any better.
    
    One of the talk shows out here in Los Angeles runs Rush's "Morning
    Update" where he takes an item out of the news, and bends the
    information all to hell.  Rush's logic is as easy to follow as A,B,3.
    
    So I HAVE listened to him, but only in small doses, because as soon as
    he gets on a roll I discover that I still can't stand the guy.  At
    which point I go listen to something else.  (And occasionally try it
    again ).
    

    Rush is a republican wannabe.  Did anyone notice his admiralty flag?
    I used to watch him because the little skits in the beginning
    of his show were HILARIOUS.  Some of the stuff he says points out
    the hypocrasy and sleaze of the dems.  
    
    MadMike

    
    Re: The following:
    
    Details of FAIR's allegations against Rush, and Rush's rebuttal, can
    be copied from TROOA::LIMBAUGH.TXT.  I'd post it here, except that it's
    over 2500 lines long.
    
    (This is for the web-challenged.  WWWeb wwwarriors can find this stuff
    at http://www.igc.apc.org/fair/ )
    
    jc
    
================================================================================
Note 18.1943               Bill Clinton/Hillary Rodham              1943 of 1964
DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "No Compromise on Freedom"         10 lines  15-DEC-1995 13:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    > Rush is a proven liar.  I'd never believe a story like that without
    > documentation from a RELIABLE source.
    
    Dick, this is the second time you have said this.  You still have not
    provided me with the proof I asked you for last time.  Will you do it
    this time, or are you going to ignore my request for proof again?

================================================================================
Note 18.1949               Bill Clinton/Hillary Rodham              1949 of 1964
SMURF::BINDER "Eis qui nos doment uescimur."          6 lines  15-DEC-1995 13:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Kirby, I do not have the article handy, unfortunately.  Nor do I recall
    where it was published.  In it were cited seven specific statements
    made by Rush, not by callers, that were shown in the article, with what
    I consider reliable documentation, to be lies.
    
================================================================================
Note 18.1950               Bill Clinton/Hillary Rodham              1950 of 1964
GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "RIP Amos, you will be missed"   8 lines  15-DEC-1995 14:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    And, if I remember correctly, Rush addressed each and every one of them
    citing his source.  Don't believe everything you read, Dick.
    
    

    
    Re: .390
    
    I've decided against posting the article here; anyone who really wants
    to read it can copy it from TROOA::LIMBAUGH.TXT, or I can mail a copy
    to any truely interested party.
    

Well, I copied it over locally. And, I can't claim that I read it in it's
entirety, not having sufficient time just now, but I did go through some of
it and at least hit the coverage from all three sections on a few of the points.

My conclusions -
    I don't feel any differently about Rush than I did before. He's an 
    entertainer, first and foremost. There's a certain amount of "poetic
    license" that goes with that. Sure - some of what he's said is untruth,
    half truth, or lies. But he's still entertaining. And his conservative
    viewpoint is still welcome. As is his "no holds barred" bashing of the
    liberal establishment and the current administration. And, it's pretty
    clear to me from what I read that FAIR is just as oppositely biased as
    Rush is, so I guess the net gain is - no loss.

    
> I used to listen to Rush.  He makes Clinton look like a class act.  Of
> course,  he would make Bozo look like a class act.

    two suggestions Phil....

    
    

    
    1) Q-tips
    2) a Reality check....

    HTH

    .393
    
    Looks like you checked your hold on reality along with your hat and
    coat outside the voting booth.

    
    
    I agree that Rush has a lot of problems.  I disagree with him on a lot
    of items.  But his track record is no worse, and in many cases better
    than many of his peers.  For example - take NBC news.  It has a stated
    anti-gun policy.  They always refuse to report anything that will put
    guns in a good light, and always play up (and distort to a HUGE degree)
    things that put guns in a bad light.
    
    Local (Boston) TV news is amongst the worse.  I now refuse to watch the
    major TV news shows since the distortion, misinformation, spin, 
    sensationalization and editorialization has made the news a joke.  in
    fact it is getting harder and harder to find unbiased news reporting in
    this country.  Many times I resort to foreign news sources (such as the
    Economist) but even those seem to have an agenda.
    
    So, what's a person to do?  I try getting several diverse sources and
    filter out the garbage.
    
    	Skip

    
    > Looks like you checked your hold on reality along with your hat and
    > coat outside the voting booth.
    
    Care to explain that comment dick?
    

    
    	Clever non-use of capitalization, Dan.
    
    	8^)
    

    .396
    
    If you had a good hold on reality, you would understand that Phil's
    assessment of Rush is correct.  The primary difference between the
    comedy of Bozo and the comedy of Rush is that Bozo doesn't terrify
    people who are capable of thinking while Rush, because of the godlike
    regard in which he is held by people who are mostly one neuron short of
    a synapse, does.

    
    re:.398

    Perhaps dick, but that does not explain the reference to the voting
    booth.

    
    Yes it does.
    
    

    
    Then kindly enlighten me dear sweet lady....

    
    	Re .396
    
    	I'll bet it's the same explaination that the left has been using
    	all year. When you have no ideas of your own, and can't compete
    	with facts, call them names and scare as many people as you can!!
    
    					Ed
    
    

RE: 84.402 by DECC::VOGEL

> I'll bet it's the same explaination that the left has been using all
> year. When you have no ideas of your own, and can't compete with facts,
> call them names and scare as many people as you can!!

Like make a list of your enemies and call them something like "morally
depraved". Oh,  that's not the left,  is it,  that's the right wing of the
Merrimack NH School board.  Or do you count Christian Coalition as
"honorary left"?


Phil

    Is it possible to like Howard Stern *and* Rush Limbaugh??  
    
    'pril

    
      Sure.  Set the obnoxometer on stun, however.
    
      Sometimes I flick the remote till I find somebody REALLY
     disgusting...
    
      bb

    I always find it amusing to see the left wing liberals tyr and bash
    Rush.  THey jump on any discrepancy, even if it was presented as an
    exaggeration or excess to prove excess, yet never make reference to the
    supposed mainstream media when they use their programs to distort
    facts.
    
    Without exception the major news outlets have consistently presented a
    liberal agenda and have made no attempt to ever even-handedly present a
    balanced report.
    
    The left loves to claim that Rush is terrible, etc because he promotes
    a conservative position and entertains while he does it.  There may be
    those who take him as gospel, but I would tend to think that it's a lot
    less than those who believe the bilge that the "legitimate" media pumps
    out.
    
    If you want ot attack Rush, then do try and be honest and point out the
    same errors by the rest of the media.
    

    
    <-- Rocush, you forgot to use the word 'socialist'.  You're slipping.
    
    

    rocush, please use a hyphen, as in left-wing liberals.
    thanks.

    
    Why criticize the content, when you can attack the presentation
    instead....

    :-P

    >> Is it possible to like Howard Stern *and* Rush Limbaugh??  
    
    Yes, even though it appears contradictory... more to the point
    I suppose, it's possible to be conservative and still have a
    seemingly-inconsistent love for the irreverent, even bad-taste
    kind of humor that so upsets the likes of the "religious right".
    In fact, the very fact that something is likely to be shocking
    and/or outrageous to someone, actually adds to its humor potential
    for me.
    
    I used to struggle with this apparent inconsistency, but at some point
    I decided to give up and simply enjoy it.
    
    In any event, as for Stern, I think he did his best work so far on
    his old syndicated weekly comedy show out of New Jersey, and since
    then he's been wasting his considerable potential merely being a
    "bad boy".  If he'd discipline himself a bit, he could be one of the
    great comedy writer/actors of his time.  He's actually somewhat
    reminiscent of Groucho Marx, updated for the 1990's...
    
    Chris

        > In any event, as for Stern, I think he did his best work so far on
    > his old syndicated weekly comedy show out of New Jersey, and since
    > then he's been wasting his considerable potential merely being a
    > "bad boy".  If he'd discipline himself a bit, he could be one of the
    > great comedy writer/actors of his time.  He's actually somewhat
    > reminiscent of Groucho Marx, updated for the 1990's...

    Far be it from me to call into question your judgment regarding
    Mr. Stern's talent, but I think you miss the point of why some
    people think he's a loser. It's not that Howard Stern offends,
    or that he's irreverent, it is that he's irrelevant. His "comedy"
    consists only of narcissism and put-down. He's very good at
    narcissism, and only mildly good at put-down. Milton Berle, in
    his sole appearance on Howard's show, managed -- without
    Howard's crudeness or self-adulation -- to shut Howard up and
    to make Howard look like the total sack of monkey $#!+ that he
    is. Howard musta sucked wienie for years to get where he is now;
    and all that he has left to suck on is his own... free hint
    Howard: a bunch of retards with speech impediments and a couple
    of dykes does not constitute an "act".

    -b

    
    Don't hold back, Brian...
    
    :^)
    

    
    	I would have loved to hear Milton Berle's appearance.
    

    I would like to see Howard go up against Don Rickles. I saw Don on
    Larry King and he is funnier than ever.

    
    That's not hard, cuz he never was very funny in the first place!
    
    

    Stern and the two bimbos were repulsive last week on Leno.  IMHO
    Leno "thought" he could control the show, word has it Leno won't
    be having Stern back.
    
    

    >> Milton Berle, in
    >> his sole appearance on Howard's show, managed -- without
    >> Howard's crudeness or self-adulation -- to shut Howard up and
    >> to make Howard look like the total sack of monkey $#!+ that he is.
    
    Ho, was that the one of the few episodes of Stern's show that I
    caught by accident (just the end), where Berle was bragging about
    the size of his, er, equipment, and how he and Forrest "Sergeant
    O'Rourke" Tucker and others had size contests, and the like?
    
    I agree that Stern's current show (and overall demeanor) is pretty
    much crap.  He's gotten far too much into his own celebrity, and
    himself in general.  His show is almost a "meta-show", and that's
    why I don't watch it.  Not to mention the terrible signal-to-noise
    ratio.  His radio show is even worse.
    
    But did you ever see his WWOR-based show from the late 1980's?  It
    was either a fluke (which is possible) or a stroke of genius, or maybe
    it was simply that I was impressed by what he was able to get away
    with, but his old show was nothing like his "All about me" current
    show, at least in my memories of it.  It seems like he's simply
    wasting himself since then, but maybe it was just beginner's luck
    and he doesn't know what to do now.
    
    Chris

    Re: Deb
    
    Who, Don or Howard?  
    
    Re: Leno
    
    The point is, is that Howard continually pushes the envelope.  No other
    person can claim to do that.  I don't necessarily agree with some of
    the stuff he does, but he can be extremely funny at times.  
    
    Without Howard Stern, the media would still be a bunch of boring old
    farts sitting around asking stupid questions nobody cares about.  
    
    Hey, at least he's given you guys something to talk about, anyway.  ;)
    
    'pril

    
    	I believe Deb was talking about Don Rickles.
    
    	While he is somewhat amusing, he appears to be nasty because he
    	likes putting people down.  Compare that to Milton Berle, who
    	appears to do most of the same stuff, or at least very similar,
    	but does it because he can make it sound funny and not just
    	nasty.
    
    	Don never impressed me too much.  Milton did.
    

    I think Don is funny and I'd love to see him take Howard apart.

    I've never found his rabid attack dog style to be particularly
    effective.

Mr. Topaz on the Howard Stern Show?

    Well, on Larry King a couple of weeks agao, he had Larry in stitches as
    well as the stage crew. I think he's very funny in an interview. wow,
    what a wit he has.

    
    RE: .417

    Chris,

    My experience with Howard is limited to his radio show. And
    that, thankfully, is limited experience as well.

    For the most part, I don't watch TV, so I've missed whatever
    genius has been non-obvious on other media...

    I think Howard totally sucks. If it's irreverence and surprise
    I'm after, there are many (better) alternatives...

    -b

    Methinks it's not that hard to have Larry Kind in stitches.
    
    Don Rickles is washed up.  I mean that in nicest possible way, really.
    
    'pril

    >wow, what a wit he has.
    
    A lot of alliteration by anxious articulaters.
    

    Oops, I know it's King. Larry King.
    
    That's the ticket.

    
    I like Don Rickles as well, particularly after his performance
    as Mr. Potato Head. Casting Rickles as Sir Spud was a stroke of
    genius.

    -b

    I guess that makes me the only Don Rickles fan around here. If that's
    the kind of wit a washed up guy can have, I could only hope to be
    washed up the same way some day.

    
    >I guess that makes me the only Don Rickles fan around here.
    
    No it doesn't.   ;^)
    

    Rickles is a funny guy, especially when he's working from a script
    that he can use as a basis for ad-libs (which probably never made it
    into "Toy Story", but I'd love to hear some outtakes from those
    sessions).  I liked him in the old "CPO Sharkey" show and in the
    recent Fox (?) show he did with Richard Whoever.
    
    Back when he was getting overexposed on talk shows, that routine
    started to wear a little thin... there's only so many times you
    can go to the well with "hockey puck" and "give him a cookie and
    he'll go away", but I still liked him.
    
    Rickles has done lots of other little-known stuff, like the old
    beach-party movies, and even several dramatic roles, on his way
    up the ladder.
    
    Berle, on the other hand, I cannot stand, no offense to his fans.
    I've tried watching kinescopes of his old shows several times, and
    just cannot get into it at all, but I can't explain it.
    
    Chris

    
    RE: .431
    
    One of the funniest scenes in Toy Story is when Mr. Potato
    Head says "Go away, you hockey puck" and then they cut to
    a hockey puck and it sorta shrugs... the way the Disney
    animators could make a plain round black circle express a
    "hey, what the puck!" sentiment was delightful...

    -b

        When Don was hosting Saturday Night Live, he was in this dumb skit, it
    was very lame. He made it hilarious because he was being so zany and
    all the actors were giggling on stage because of his unexpected
    ad-libs.

    I was rolling! Not on stage, at home, on the floor, in front of the TV.

    
    
    
    I'm with Chris on this.  Rickles is funny.  Berle, I don't care for.
    
    

    is berle a transvestite?

    
    
    I guess so... at least he seemed to be before it was politically
    correct...
    

    I don't know what this means any more.

    if you were a transvestite, wouldn't you be politically 
    incorrect?

    
    
    Who knows?
    
     It's such an overused term anymore that the fine-line is blurred...
    

    I don't know what it means.
    
    Should I dress up like a woman? Is that what it means?

    
    
    Only if you shave your beard and smoke a cigar....
    

    this topic has been amazingly quiet during recent months - has Rush
    gone off the air?  What is his stand on the elections?

    rush has had his mouth wired shut in an attempt to lose
    some weight.  let's hope he has a sloooooow metabolism.

Rush Snarf!  News at "4".

I think all Rush activity relocated to the new "Who cares?" topic.

HTH,
Pete

    I think maybe I should put up daily "Rush Reports" for all of our
    conservative, and perhaps curious liberal, noters. 
    
    -ss
    

re: .446 

Instead, why not create your own notesfile, call it BSS::RUSH_MEGADITTO
and post all the reviews, reports, collections, adulations, congratulations,
and dittos you want to your heart's content.

We'll both be happier.  Trust me.
\john

    ditto

I'd say .445 sums it up...
I listened for a while (more than you can say for many of his detractors). He
says "don't be a moderate", yet he's the most outstanding example of one I
can think of....

    
    You're just mad that he called you a kook.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 84.450 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>    You're just mad that he called you a kook.

You assume much, mr. bill.
You must admit, he's a bit hypocritical.

    re. 447
    
    I'm not a conservative or a dittohead for that matter.  I am a
    registered libertarian, totally p*ssed off at the dependant state that
    people like Pat Schroeder, Sam Gibbons, & Bill Clinton, and anyone else
    who think that citizens can't do for themselves.  \john, you're
    probably one of those that think the government should control 1/7
    of this country's economy. Raise the minimum wage! Segregate
    individuals! Scare old people! Don't worry, our trusted polititions 
    (I like that one) will take care of everyone.  
    
    You're probably one of these old farts, been voting liberal since day
    one, that won't have to worry in 30 years when the whole damn country's
    broke and there's no hope to look ahead.  I hate to get personal but I
    bet you're the type that has mega credit card bills because you can
    "worry about it later"...
    
    No, I don't think the Republicans are that great either, but gimme a
    break...What is it? You just don't like Rush?  Surely, you can't
    possibly agree with the liberal agenda.
    JMO
    -ss

	I'll tell you what. We'll tell the government to stop funding, as they
are no longer going to have a say in matters. Then we will see what the states
will do. This might be good, because they can use the extra money to balance
the budget, and pay off the gov's debt.

	What it comes down to is the fed gov does have a say in what happens.
The state has a say in what happens. If you don't want them to have a say, then
pay for everything yourself, and that would also mean police protection, etc. 

	If you want to talk about reforms, then you're being resonable. But to
go on without any specifics, doesn't get you anywhere.


Glen

re: .452 (SMITH_S)

You're an idiot.

Or you play one in NOTES; hard to tell which.

Try thinking before replying.  Better results, guaranteed!
\john

    
    
    	very subtle John. :)
    
    

	But you have to admit, Jim....this was one of the few John's notes that 
he didn't leave people guessing what he could have meant. :-)

    
    
    	aye.
    
    

    
    re: .452
    
    Sheeeeeeesh!!! You're sounding like our Mr. Bill (albeit from the other
    end of the spectrum)!!!!
    

    /John:
    
    Do you agree that a majority of the expenditures that come out of
    Washington DC are unconstitutional?
    
    

    re .454
    
    Ooooooooh, gotta love that brashness.  But so unlike you liberal types.
    
    >>>You're an idiot.
    
    Yea,yea and my dad can beat up yours.
    
    >>>Try thinking before replying.
    
    Only replying what I think.  So what do you think /john. You say I'm an
    
    idiot, look at the liberal losers you appear to support.  What do you
    
    think about the way they want to drive social security in the ground.
    
    No, they won't tell you that but they don't want to do anything about
    
    the way it's going...straight in the red.  Or how about this crazy
    
    minimum wage b.s.?  
    
    What makes me a idiot?  The way I think? If that's the case you're an
    
    idiot.  Maybe you don't think & that's what the problem is.  I'm sorry
    
    but I don't have time to read every note in this conference so I don't
    
    know what your (maybe, not so) valued political opinions may be.
    
    Enlighten me if you dare.
    
    -ss

re: .459 (JackM)

Why not tell me what pigeonhole you're going to put me in depending
on my answers?  I'm gonna go way (WAY!) out on a limb here, and
guess:

    "No" = Dirty stinkin' lowlife commie bleeding heart liberal

    "Yes" = Good guy patriot all-American righteous dude, if not
            a little confused sometimes.

Your turn:
    Do you think Digital should fire lazy people who spend the
    majority of their day writing stupid replies in Soapbox?

TFP
\john

re: .460 (SMITH_S)

What make you an idiot are your continued proclamations regarding my
stand on things, when the ability to find out my actual position on the
issues is staring back at you right now.


                           F R E E    C L U E
                           -------    -------

                    A lack of appreciation for Rush
                 Limbaugh does not make one a liberal

\john

    re. 462
    
    Okay, upon re-reading I'll admit I may have come off a bit rude &
    
    presumptious (sp?). However, I felt a bit defensive to your earlier
    
    response.  You can't find anything to agree on with Rush?  I won't
    
    say I agree with everything he says but, I don't think he's that bad.
    
    I'm getting my taxes ready and man, I got raped this past year.  I'm
    
    tired of being held down by this restrictive government.  Anybody 
    
    know how to get in touch with these "freemen" guys?
    

    RE: .463  
    
    > Anybody know how to get in touch with these "freemen" guys?       
    
    Gee, are you really angry enough to plot to murder people (and
    to blame the Jews for bringing blacks to this country to destroy
    it?)
    
    If you aren't a murderous white supremacist, then you may want to
    rethink the idea of joining these guys.

    No, I wouldn't join a group like that. But I like the radical element
    
    Can't I hate the government too.

| <<< Note 84.460 by BSS::SMITH_S "lycanthrope" >>>


| Enlighten me if you dare.

	If

	you

	would

	stop

	double 

	spacing 

	after 

	each 

	sentence, 

	you 

	might 

	be 

	taken 

	seriously.

re: .465 (SMITH_S)

I think you can apologize better than that.

I've always known libertarians to be a more thoughtful bunch;
you seem to be an exception.  Any ideas on why you think "rude
and obnoxious" is a good way to get your point across?

Rush is an Entertainer.  That is his profession.  You may like
his style of entertainment; that's fine.  To categorize people who
don't like Rush as a government-loving liberal old fart makes
you appear an idiot.  What part of that don't you understand?

If you believe Rush advocates a libertarian philosophy, I'd suggest
a call to Laissez-Faire Books at 1-800-326-0996.  They'll send you
a catalog, and you can learn all about libartarianism.

Rush is NOT a libertarian.
\john

I dunno, Glen. Actually I thought that the double spacing was easier on the

eyes. Especially if kept to one screen per reply.

Then again, I'm getting to the point that I check out the "LARGE TYPE"

book sections, too ...

    re.467
    
        What did I hurt your feelings?  I don't remember apologizing. You
    called me an idiot.  I'm not crying....so anyways....Thank you for that
    fine refresher in Entertainment 101.  I'm sure those that are ignorant
    of these facts will find it useful. What makes a person an entertainer?
    I laugh everytime I hear Peter Jennings opens his mouth. He's a pretty
    good entertainer himself.  Journalism?  I don't recall you mentioning
    that word.  
    
    And like I said, I know what Rush is. We have differences.
    -ss

    re. 466
    
        Only trying to be p.c. for our older, or maybe out of focus
    readers.  But from now on, if I double space, please don't take
    me serious.(Set myself up for this one so have fun & be creative)

Jack, you _are_ a large type.

| <<< Note 84.468 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| Then again, I'm getting to the point that I check out the "LARGE TYPE"
| book sections, too ...

	Jack, are you reading the Dick & Jane books again? :-)

| <<< Note 84.470 by BSS::SMITH_S "lycanthrope" >>>

| Only trying to be p.c. for our older, or maybe out of focus readers.  

	Well, I don't know how old you are, but it appears you qualify under
the, "out of focus readers" catagory. :-)



Glen

    Z    Do you think Digital should fire lazy people who spend the
    Z    majority of their day writing stupid replies in Soapbox?
    
    /John, I will be more than glad to answer this question.  I am a sales
    coded employee for Digital.  This means that my position is
    quantifiable, it can be measured.  Check the record chump!
    

    	Jacks Budget				Jacks Actuals
    
    Q1      600k    21% of total budget         $646K
    Q2      712k    25% of total budget         $1.2M
    Q3      655k    23% of total budget         $1.35M
    Q4      883     31% of total budget         I'll blow it away.
    
    So, in response to your lame implication of me spending all day putting
    stupid entries in Soapbox, the answer is a resounding NO!  And the
    reason it is no is because our fearless leadership up here is getting
    what they asked for from me.  They provided me with goals, I've
    exceeded these goals, I will be a DEC100 winner this year and am
    therefore recognized by Digital as a value added employee.  My boss
    told us last year that our time spent day to day is none of his concern
    so long as we make our number.  Technically I've blown away my yearly
    budget, I'm better than most...I'm smug about it and proud of it.  All
    those attributes a Christian shouldn't be... :-)  I am invincable!!! 
    I'm a lousy speller but I'm invincable.
    
    Now getting back to the original point, I asked about Constitutional
    spending not to pigeonhole you.  Unlike the previous writer, I don't
    believe you are a liberal by any means.  I believe you vote strictly on
    principle.  The bad thing about guys like you, and it's unfortunate to
    say this because you are actually in the right, is that you take away
    needed votes for the other candidate.  You'll vote for the guy who will
    get 3% of the vote.  I do this in the primaries (I voted for Alan
    Keyes).  Your voting for Joe Blow will most assuredly allow Klinton to
    win the presidency.  Now you may see Dole and Klinton from the same
    cloth.  I believe Dole will provide less of a bottleneck.  I ask if you
    believe we should cut out unconstitutional spending for a good reason. 
    Bill Clinton is NOT upholding the Constitution of the US.  He is a
    treasonist.
    
    -Jack
    

    Like Jack, people can spend many hours doing other than what they are 
    payed to do. If I am the boss I don't GAS as long as this person is a 
    producer and accomplishes more than is expected.
    
    I disagree with him on the voting thing. 

	Jack, when you threw in the spelling part, you had me rolling!

	If you're gonna GAS someone, I'm sure they make their goals. I know I
wouldn't want you in my office if you were gonna poop

    :)
    
    

re: .474 (JackM)

>    The bad thing about guys like you, and it's unfortunate to
>    say this because you are actually in the right, is that you take away
>    needed votes for the other candidate.

All this time, and you still don't get it.

I'm not "taking away needed votes"!!!!  They have to EARN my vote.  If
they don't EARN it, they don't GET it.  It wasn't theirs to begin with.
It's MINE.  I guess you feel you "owe" your vote to the republicans or
something; I dunno.

To use my old example:  If Clinton polls 42%, Perot 39%, and Dole 12%, are
you telling me you'll feel like you contributed to Clinton's election
because you voted Dole instead of Perot??  Of course not.  You wouldn't
even consider voting for Clinton OR Perot.  And you took votes away from
nobody.  For the same reason, I can vote Harry Browne, and not take anything
away from Dole OR Clinton.

Duh.
\john

 ZZ   away from Dole OR Clinton.
    
 ZZ   Duh.
 ZZ   \john
    
    Yeah yeah you're just pissed off because I bring in money to the
    company and you're overhead.  

re: .469 (SMITH_S)

Lots of words, little understanding.


You didn't hurt my feelings.

You did misrepresent my position, several times, even though you were
    informed of your misrepresentation.  So you're dishonest as well
    as uneducated.  How nice.  As a libertarian, I'm asking you to    
    shut the hell up.  You're making us look bad.


I didn't use Journalist because Rush is NOT a journalist.

I used Entertainer because Rush IS an entertainer.


Too bad you didn't use your free clue.  It's still good, you know!
\john

re: .480 (JackM)

re: overhead

Oops.  I meant to address your numbers.  Congratulations.  That's good
for you, AND good for the company.  You clearly missed the point about
pigeonholes and people; and that is that they most often DON'T FIT.
Like you don't fit into the lazy Soapbox noter hole.  Thanks for providing
an EXCELLENT example, although I'm somewhat concerned that one was
even necessary.

And while you may consider OpenVMS Engineering "overhead", I wonder
how much you'd be selling if VMS wasn't there.

\john

    Alot, since most of my revenue comes from UNIX and Windows NT.
    
    Like a senior citizen who just lost her last tooth, you've just lost
    40% of your hearing and your breaking down.  Thanks for the memories
    though!

    
    	RE: Alot
    
    	Jack, Deb's gonna be mad at you!!
    
    
    
    	You should know by now that it's ALOT.
    

| <<< Note 84.485 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Little Chamber of Full Body Frisks" >>>
 
{grimace} 
 


	Take it to the food topic, Deb! Actually, for McDonalds, take it to the
gak topic! :-)

>Note 84.481
>ALPHAZ::HARNEY
>---------------
>
>I didn't use Journalist because Rush is NOT a journalist.
>
>I used Entertainer because Rush IS an entertainer.
>

	Though Rush is not a journalist and is an entertainer, I think
his show is more of an infomercial.  He keeps touting his service
(conservative republicans) and slamming the competitive service (liberal
democrat).  He does it a little differently than most infomercials though.
He does it on a topical basis. His show is basically a topical infomercial.

	I laugh then almost puke when he goes into his "BE AFRAID, BE VERY
AFRAID because the LIBERALS ARE GOING TO TELL YOU TO BE AFRAID!!" routine.

    Stacy:
    
    Rush not withstanding, which party in your honest opinion uses fear
    mongering most?

	I'm not Stacy....but with the right make-up I could be. :-)

	The repubs and Dems are both guilty. They go to the extremes. You need
a few good independants in office to fix this. I will run for office tomorrow. 

    
    	If you start running now, you might be able to get there by tom-
    	orrow.  I wouldn't wait too long, though.
    

                  <<< Note 84.490 by BIGQ::SILVA "Mr. Logo" >>>



	> You need a few good independants in office to fix this.

        Unless they're independents like Bernie Sanders VT.

        daryll

    From what I've heard and seen the last few years, the dems are
    CONSTANTLY fear mongering to manipulate the poor, the bloodsucking blue
    collar class, and the senior citizens w/o common sense enough to
    realize the dems of today are not from the same cloth as JFK.
    
    The pubs fearmongered regarding Hillarycare, understandably.  I know of
    no other time where they've done this.

	Jack, both go to the extremes.

    Please cite examples when the pubs did this?  I have plenty of dem
    examples.

    re .481
    
         I'll have to decline your request to "shut the hell up".  As for
    misrepresenting your position, that is not true. You don't appear to
    stand for anything. All you do is attack me or my thoughts.  I think
    you're a coward. 
    -ss

    re .-1
    
    

| <<< Note 84.496 by BSS::SMITH_S "lycanthrope" >>>


| As for misrepresenting your position, that is not true. You don't appear to
| stand for anything. 

	This is a LIE! I bet he stands when women enter the room. 




Glen

| <<< Note 84.497 by BSS::PROCTOR_R "Smarmy THIS!!!" >>>


| -< see ya in 16.l. wear your silk boxers. >-

	I'll be in the audience......

    >  I'll be in the audience.......
    
    me too.

re:
>======================================================
>Note 84.489                       Rush Limbaugh
>MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Rush not withstanding, which party in your honest opinion uses fear
>    mongering most?

	I haven't kept a scoreboard with a % one or the other.  I don't count
the mosquitoes and other annoying insects I kill either.  I don't like it when
ANYBODY does it just to  scare people.  Republicans, Democrats, PACs or
special interests.  I also realize that most Americans get their understanding
of issues in bites.  Sound bites.  I'm guilty of it on some issues too.  And
all that really bites.

	The conservative republicans do it with the labels and images they
use.  You've seen it in here with the terms  "Socialist, Communist, morality,
welfare state, tax and spend, ...".  Mr Gingrich and the RNC went around the
nation telling his minion conservative candidates exactly what words to  use
to make the Democrats look bad (anti-family, immoral, anti-American ...).
These evoke a fear because of their use and our history.  The conservative
republicans have used fear mongering to build the military (commies,
terrorists, ...). They are using fear to help stop  gun control.  They are
using it to stop abortions.  One candidate completely destroyed a candidate in
California with these unfounded fear mongering attacks (no I don't remember
the name, and yes I will look for it at home tonight).  Remember "Willie
Horton"? Then there is the "gays recruit" argument.  The crime and punishment
argument. The conservative republicans have also been very instrumental  in
people to distrust government so much that they want to take a wrecking  ball
to the whole thing.  Again, in here the idea of cooperation between local,
state and federal government isn't often given the light of day  because of
distrust, based on a type of fear,  of the government.


	The democrats do use fear too.  They don't have the uniform label
factory down as well as the conservatives though.  Although, I know racism is
still widespread in the USA, some do use race too often.  Most or at least
some of the conservative Republicans don't believe in the total abandonment of
social supports for people in need.  They also try to invoke a fear of the
consequences of the oppositions ideas.  I can't go much further here because I
distrust conservative republicans more than most. I think what the democrats
say about the conservative republicans is timid compared to what I think.

	The Libertarians also use fear.  Read some of their literature on
gays or aids.  They also foster a fear of government.  I don't know much
more about them than that.

	Now, it is my turn sort of.  Throughout all of history, whenever a
people got to the point that they did not like their government, they got
a new one.  What are you, that hate government so much, suggesting we
replace democracy with???

    Consider the following.  The word Senate was the same term used by
    Moses when appointing Princes throughouy the tribes of Israel.  From
    what I understand, it used to be that the Representatives appointed the
    Senators and they weren't voted in by the electorate.  Their sole
    purpose was to protect the peoples from the Federal government.
    
    You speak of a lack of trust...well, I can assure you that this
    mistrust stems back to the Continental Congress.
    
    -Jack

re: .502

	I think the Senators were elected by the State representatives, not
the federal.

	With respect to my distrust, there weren't any Republicans around at the
Continental Congress.  That and I wasn't there.  My dislike and distrust of
conservative replublican stems from the 1900's and mostly the last 20 or so
years.  That was when the conservative movement took a major shift.  I can go on
for hours/days about why this was bad for the USA but instead I suggest you read
the Boston Herald, Tues April 2nd 1996 article by Mickey Edwards.

    Thanks, I'll try.
    
    The congress was more split by North and South at the time of the
    Continental Congress.
    
    Do you believe FDR, Truman, and LBJ upheld the Constitution of the
    United States?  

re: .504

It seems that you have something specific in mind.  What is it?

The nation was split along more lines than North and South before
the civil war.  Historians would have you believe it was only a
race issue.  The constitution was carefully worded to get the people
of the day to buy into it.  I believe it was always intended to be
a living document.  It carefully gives you a way to modify it to make
it so.

    Yes, I do have something in mind.  Let's put Reagan aside for the
    moment.  You spoke of how bad the republicans have been the last twenty
    years.  Having said that I ask you the following...
    
    -Has FDR, Truman, and LBJ defended and supported the Constitution?
    
    -If no, then do you support the Constitution?
    
    -If yes, then how can you say the pubs have been bad?  Have they also
    poo poo'd the Constitution?

    HAVE FDR, Truman and LBJ....not Has!
    
    Correcting myself.

    
    	Change "have", and this time use "had".
    

    Uhhhhhh.....yeah

    "did" works quite well, too... 

    
    	No, because "did defended" and "did supported" are very awkward.
    
    	8^)
    

	Why I like Rush (in 100 words or less)
		by Jack Del Balso

"I have yet to hear anyone slam Slick and the Liberal Democrat
 agenda as effectively as Rush. As I disagree with their philosophies
 so intently, and as I despise Slick as much as I do for being
 a draft-dodging, lying sack of dog crap, I will truly miss
 Rush's encouraging commentary when Slick and his "wife" finally
 depart from the national scene. Rush's program continues to
 provide me with a reminder that not all of America is constantly
 in a position to be doing a visual exam of the inner wall of
 their lower intestine."

    Rush is the best.
    

  Great note, Jack.




 Jim

> Rush is the best.

  Bwahahahahahahahahah...

  best what?

>                    <<< Note 84.515 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>  best what?

	- promoter of himself
	- magnet for sappy, boot-licking groupies
	- bad-mouther of Democrats

    
    <----
    
    yes, but... is there any truth to anything he says????
    
     Anything?? Ever??
    

>        <<< Note 84.517 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove jerks" >>>
    
>    yes, but... is there any truth to anything he says????
>     Anything?? Ever??


	In my opinion - yes.

	hth

    

    
    Thanks Di...
    
    Hmmmm... sorta like my opinion of Blush...
    
    
    
    
    
    P.S. Stick it Phil....

>        <<< Note 84.519 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove jerks" >>>

	It's not like it's a point I'm conceding or anything.  I think
	there's a lot of truth to some things that he says.  I find him to be
	generally obnoxious and frighteningly subversive though.  Brain-
	washer extraordinaire.

there's a lot of half truths spewing from that sewer
pipe as well.

    Why bring the president into this note? This is for Rush. :-)

    Actually, I've never found Rush to be that charasmatic.  But, I noticed
    a change in his show recently.  There was less making fun of, and more
    serious pointing out of [inconsistencies in the whitehouse].
    
    The only real serious issue I have right now hasn't to do with Rush or
    even the Clinton's...but is there any reputable person in the running
    for President that has half a chance at winning.
    
    The American people by far are the most duped and uninformed consensus
    of voters that I have ever met.  Professionals in this office where I
    work, haven't a clue as to the political agendas and/or events going on
    in our world today.  And I'm saddened to say, its mostly women.
    
    In my own church, educated, articulate and wonderful women vote for who
    their husband tells them to vote for or they don't vote at all! 
    Imagine my [unable to hide] disdain!  Why I let one woman have it so
    passionately, that she avoids me everytime she sees me now. :-) :-) 
    
    Voter awareness by people who are in every other way, intelligent
    beings abound in ignorance and apathy.
    
    Rush allows some of these apathetic people to wake up.  And for that I
    am grateful.  
    
    Nancy
    

    Nancy:
    
    Interestingly enough, I voted for Alan Keyes in the NH primary and
    Michele voted for Patrick Buchanan.  Suffice to say against what
    Suzanne may think, I did not tell her how to vote or anything of that
    nature.  Of course it helps to know we both lean toward the same
    ideologies.
    
    -Jack

    
    re: .520
    
    >Brainwasher extraordinaire.
    
    
    Di...
    
    Are you denigrating those ditto-heads (voters) who listen/watch him??
    
    Are you saying voters can't think for themselves??
    

    >Brainwasher extraordinaire.

I'm curious about this as well.

Is it that you believe that no one would be of the opinions that Rush
pronounces if they hadn't heard them from Rush to begin with?

>         <<< Note 84.527 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Is it that you believe that no one would be of the opinions that Rush
>pronounces if they hadn't heard them from Rush to begin with?

	"No one"?  Where did I imply that?  I believe he's all too capable
	of brainwashing _some_ people.

	hth

> I believe he's all too capable of brainwashing _some_ people.

Just like Slick, then, huh?

>Just like Slick, then, huh?

	Yup.  Well maybe not _just_ like him.  Rush hammers away at people
	on a much more regular basis.

> Rush hammers away at people on a much more regular basis.

Thass why we like him.

> Rush hammers away at people on a much more regular basis.
    
    A Mike Barnicle of the airwaves.

    
    re: .530
    
    >Rush hammers away at people on a much more regular basis.
    
    Di,
    
     I don't listen/watch, so I can't really comment. I've gleaned what I
    could from various comments/opinions/statements by others...
    
     What I would like to comment on is that Slick "hammers" people on a
    regular basis too. Either personally, or through his spokespersons.
    My opinion is that he started in campaign mode before he became
    president and has never left that mode... I am hoping it catches up
    with him.
    

>        <<< Note 84.533 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove jerks" >>>
    
>     What I would like to comment on is that Slick "hammers" people on a
>    regular basis too. 

	That's why I said a much _more_ regular basis.  I don't like Clinton
	either, but that really has nothing to do with my opinion of Rush
	Limbaugh.

    Bummer, Rush re-runs all week.

    > Bummer, Rush re-runs all week.
    
    The show so nice, they let you throw up twice...(over it.)
    

You must admit, whoever writes all those songs is hilarious...!

Other than that, I find Rush himself somewhat hypocritcal. "Relentless
persuit of the truth"? Yahright. Try persuit of ratings and $.

    
    re: .536
    
    >The show so nice, they let you throw up twice...(over it.)
    
    
    
    
    How.... trashy....

    Gee, I seem to remember someone in here commenting that the Republicans
    were stupid for "insulting" voters.  It would seem that that same
    person has no trouble insulting voters on the opposite side.
    
    Well I gues it's just another example of liberals saying, do what I
    say, not what I do.
    

    I think I'm going through withdrawal.  Haven't had time to watch Rush
    in more than 2 weeks.  I can't wait to get fully moved in to my new
    place.
    -ss

    Is that gas bag still on?  I thought he followed Morton Downey into
    obscurity.   

    He's on twice a day here in CO.  I still can't find time to watch.
    -ss

    So Rush is calling it quits. I heard he's trying to get dibs on the new
    network Rupert Murdoch is starting up.  His last day is Aug. 1. I
    really don't think he's going away though. I think he has the potential
    to be a key player to the GOP platform. 
    
    -ss

>    So Rush is calling it quits.

Rush is abandoning only his syndicated teevee prog. As this was never his
claim to fame in any event, it matters little. As a syndicated teevee program,
he got dorked around plenty which played havoc with the ratings. Not to
mention which, you don't get the same sort of ratings for an off-prime
show as for otherwise.

His radio program, which is where he's best appreciated, is going great
guns, and in no danger.

Rush will continue, on your very own AM dial, to expose the liberal left, and 
Slick in particular, for the lying thieves that they are.

    Yeah, I need to get the times of his show around here. I'm only a tv
    watcher when it comes to Rush.
    

>Rush will continue, on your very own AM dial, to expose the liberal left, and 
>Slick in particular, for the lying thieves that they are.

Clinton's the best thing that ever happened to Rush. Had Bush won we'd
hardly be talking about Rush.

Somewhere along the line Rush switched from conservative to republican at
which time he lost a lot of his sting.

At his best, Rush is truly funny. At his worst, he's a dreadful bore.

TTom

    Gee, this is bad news.  And me without an AM dial in sight. 
    Whatever am I to do?  This is almost as tragic as the loss of televised
    candle pin bowling.  Now that was truly tragic.  
     

    It was obvious in Chicago that the networks, even the syndicated ones,
    did not want Rush to have a successful venture and gather a large
    audience.
    
    When he first appeared in Chicago at 9:30 he had fantastic ratings. 
    they then moved him to 10:30 which was evetter as you got a chance to
    watch the majors give their "presentation" to the news and then see
    Rush present the same information.  quite a revealing activity.
    
    He had great ratings, roughly the same as Letterman and Leno, and
    somtines higher, and then they moved him to 11:30 and then 12:30.  Last
    year they moved the program to 6:00 am where it is almost impossible to
    see the program.
    
    I hope he shows up on a major station with a set, prime time slot.  I
    would really like to see exactly how well he can do with an honest
    effort to present a conservative program.
    

>    would really like to see exactly how well he can do with an honest
>    effort to present a conservative program.

Won't happen. Best you can hope for is a_honest republican program. I
even doubt that.

So what you're saying is that a TV station moved a program that was
competing with the late night superstars so that less people would watch
and their revenue would diminish.

Sounds likely, not.

Part of the Rush package is this continuing paranoia that people are out
to get him. Yeah, he's having such a hard time making it that he only a
multi-millionaire.

TTom

    TTom:
    
    Doesn't it strike you as a tad peculiar that a station in Chicago with
    outstanding ratings would move a successful show to a 6:00 AM slot?

Seems down right stupid!~

So one can only wonder why this was done. The implication is that the fix
was in. 

Doesn't Rush often say, "follow the money"? 

TTom

    .551 et. al.
    
    Gee, I don't know.  There have been numerous programs that had very
    acceptable ratings that were dumped for reasons other than ratings.
    
    I believe you can check the #s and find if Rush is lying or not.  What
    I do know is that in Chicago he had a very solid position compared to
    other programs and his show got moved to a less popular time.
    
    Are you saying that it is inconceivable that a dicsion to make a
    program less popular based on content is unreasonable.  Is that why no
    station in Washington DC would carry his program?  this was true
    inother areas as well.
    

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I know that historically the fix
has been put in even though it cost some people some money.

Rush's position seems to be that he is being blackballed. It sounds like
he may have a case here and there.

I think the real demise of his program was that he looks just like the
title of the Al Franken book and there's no getting around it.

He looks a lot better on radio. And apparently, plays a lot better, too.

TTom

  > Rush's position seems to be that he is being blackballed.

	Being ignored is more like it.  Blowhard members of
	the lunatic fringe don't merit a lot of attention.

>         <<< Note 84.553 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

>He looks a lot better on radio. 

	too bad he sounds just as bad.

    I'm not sure, but I believe that in the Boston area, Rush has been
    pushed back to 4:00 in the morning.  Surprise.
    
    But all morning long and all afternoon long, even on the major
    network affiliates in Boston, you can watch a score or more of
    sleaze "talk" shows which are primarily confrontational carnivals,
    and which primarily serve to lower society's standards for the
    commonly-acceptable norm on moral and ethical behavior.
    
    No wonder Slick's going to be re-elected by a public that in the
    majority nevertheless believes that he's a liar.  He's small
    potatoes compared to what the media has us accustomed to thinking
    is normal, acceptable behavior these days.
    
    Chris

    .554
    
    Well that was a telling entry.  Look at the ratings that Rush had for
    the first year when he pretty much had a decent time slot.  You will
    find that he had rather good ratings.  Once he started getting bounced
    around his ratings began to drop.  I know of numerous people who
    stopped watching because the time kept changing and couldn't find it
    many times.
    
    But I guess if your contention is accurate then that explains why Mario
    Cuomo's show went off of the air.  He certainly was being ignored. 
    According to your definition then the great icon of liberalism must be
    considered a blowhard member of the lunatic fringe.
    
    Thanks for confirming my opinion of dear Mario.
    

>    I'm not sure, but I believe that in the Boston area, Rush has been
>    pushed back to 4:00 in the morning.  Surprise.
 

     Manchester NH has him on at 12:05AM 


   
   Jim

    
    The sindication market is getting crowded and is loosing
    favor to the new networks that are popping up as the result
    of new legislation passed last year.
    
    Rush is just jumping off a sinking ship and looking for
    solid, more profitable platforms to execute from.

    Bummer.  Rush's radio program comes on too early in the morning for me
    to listen to.  

    
    Has Rush updated his "n number of days left in the raw deal" blurb yet,
    or is he waiting until Clinton is re-elected?
    

 He changed that line after the November '94 elections.