"p_j" wrote in message
...
Mike Terry wrote:

Sure you do. He's the former self-described "right-wing hit man"
who
famously transformed himself into a left-wing hit man,

Reporting facts wouldn't make anyone a "hit man" for any side.

So you agree with the facts that the same guy reported in his "expose"
of Anita Hill?


although he would
probably rather call himself an advocate for "progressive" causes.

My impression is that he's doing what is hated most by the
Taliban/RNC
worshipers and cult members... telling the truth.

Except that the loony lefties who have such a love fest with his
version of the truth now didn't want any part of him when he was on
the other side. Now all of a sudden he's credible. Consistency as
usual. Big surprise.

His latest cause is a campaign to drive Rush Limbaugh from the
lineup of the
American Forces Radio and Television Service, formerly known as
Armed
Service Radio.

Who would disagree with that? The guy is just shilling for Bush and
telling whopper after whopper to do it.


He may be shilling for Bush, but you and I both know that you don't
listen to him enough to really know what he's saying, right? And look
at it this way, as long as the"shilling" from NPR gets on AFRTS,
what's wrong with -one- hour of Rush?

I especially liked his rationale for the problems with prisoners
throughout the military - women were allowed in the military.
According
to him, you can expect much of the same at police departments with
female police chiefs. If anything he shouldn't be broadcast, so that
members of the military won't want to join the other side.

And you know this because you're a regular listener, I'm sure. Why do
I suspect that you don't listen to him enough to know what his
rationale is for anything, let alone this?