On 1/25/10 10:12 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:36:28 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:




Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do
not support this money?


Advertising on Rush's show isn't cheap. There's a LOT of money in
advertising, alone. But stations also pay a carriage fee for running
the show. These fees, and advertising, easily cover Rush's personal
compensation and bonuses as well as profits for his syndicator.

Then, there's his website, also advertising supported, with a
subscription base for access to premium content, as well as his
newsletter.

There's nothing sinister going on in the way Rush is paid.

Well, it's like the old saying says: You can fool some of the people
some of the time---but a conservative only needs to be fed compliments
and legitimize their beliefs and their happy as clams.


Yes, because only Conservatives are naive.

On 1/25/10 14:52 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:23:52 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/25/10 10:12 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:36:28 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:




Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do
not support this money?


Advertising on Rush's show isn't cheap. There's a LOT of money in
advertising, alone. But stations also pay a carriage fee for running
the show. These fees, and advertising, easily cover Rush's personal
compensation and bonuses as well as profits for his syndicator.

Then, there's his website, also advertising supported, with a
subscription base for access to premium content, as well as his
newsletter.

There's nothing sinister going on in the way Rush is paid.

Well, it's like the old saying says: You can fool some of the people
some of the time---but a conservative only needs to be fed compliments
and legitimize their beliefs and their happy as clams.


Yes, because only Conservatives are naive.



Must be some reason why an entire belief system would oppose nearly
all modern change for the better, like voting rights, civil rights,
womens rights, childrens rights....and fight viciously for policies,
ideas and socially failed beliefs so hard.


Check your history. Voting rights, civil rights, women's rights
and childrens rights were all passed by Republican majorities, while
Democrats fought viciously fought them.

Start with the Civil Rights act of 1964. That'll keep you
occupied for a while.

On 1/25/10 19:43 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:59:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

Must be some reason why an entire belief system would oppose nearly
all modern change for the better, like voting rights, civil rights,
womens rights, childrens rights....and fight viciously for policies,
ideas and socially failed beliefs so hard.


Check your history. Voting rights, civil rights, women's rights
and childrens rights were all passed by Republican majorities, while
Democrats fought viciously fought them.

Start with the Civil Rights act of 1964. That'll keep you
occupied for a while.


Christ, whatta doofus

First of all, Party label doesn't qualify for the issue

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

On 1/26/10 10:57 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:41:50 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

But not on a false claim that conservatives weren't responsible for
most of the bad things that happened to America and were opposed to
all the changes that made us great


Again, your needle is stuck.

On 1/26/10 13:32 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:59:37 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 10:57 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:41:50 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

But not on a false claim that conservatives weren't responsible for
most of the bad things that happened to America and were opposed to
all the changes that made us great


Again, your needle is stuck.



Lame grade school evasion

Noted.


Ditto.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh

Were confederates, Southerners, Judge Roy Moore Liberals---or
conservatives?

Which supported Jim Crow---Liberals or conservatives?

Which party did conservatives leave after they introduced the Civil
Rights act?

The classical liberals, like the framers of the US Constitution were for
limited govt with enumerated powers. Today who is for limited govt the
conservative or the liberal? Your liberal/conservative comparison takes the
comparison out of context, I'm just putting it back into context ... Don't
try to hide behind the liberal label when it was the Democrats that
supported all the above you list ...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:15:20 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh

Were confederates, Southerners, Judge Roy Moore Liberals---or
conservatives?

Which supported Jim Crow---Liberals or conservatives?

Which party did conservatives leave after they introduced the Civil
Rights act?

The classical liberals, like the framers of the US Constitution were for
limited govt with enumerated powers. Today who is for limited govt the
conservative or the liberal? Your liberal/conservative comparison takes
the
comparison out of context, I'm just putting it back into context ... Don't
try to hide behind the liberal label when it was the Democrats that
supported all the above you list ...



Classical liberals dealt with relationships of government and the
governed. We revolted because that relationship between us and the
government was "broken"

Everyone liberal or conservative has a relationship with government ... its
the nature of man and govt. Anytime there is a revolution one can say the
relationship is 'broken' ... the American revolution was no different.

The government(s) of Europe were generally princes and royalty, the
idea of "less government" cannot be applied to the present rationale
of the idiot loonytarians and conservatives--it's used as a rhetorical
propaganda.

Are you saying our US Constituton had an expiration date on it? ... '"less
govt" cannot be applied to the present rational..."
The Framers really didn't mean what they wrote in the US Constitution about
a limited govt??? ... "The powers not delegated to the US by the
Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively " ... this is untrue??? ... read Art I sect 8 of the US
Constitution.

Our Founders took (as an experiment) the notion that "rights" are not
given by princes and kings (or despots)---but from a "higher
power"--and instituted a "rule of law"--that certainly was setting a
lot of "government in motion"

It set NO 'lot of '"government in motion''' ... The Federal Govt role/powers
were limited and enumerated by the Constitution ... States were suppose to
do the most of the 'every day' governing of the people.

the "less government" isn't applicable because early 18th century was
rural, agrarian, and "government" was small out of lack of need. The
influx of millions of immigrants, the industrial revolution, westward
expansion finally created a mess because of "less government" (or
worse, government siding with wealth and industry)

The US Constitution CAN be changed ... don't give me that 'rule of law' when
the Constitution's limited powers are ignored. One of the reasons for that
"broken" relationship you write of above, between the American colonist and
Great Britian was "He (King George) has erected a multitude of New Offices,
and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their
substance." ... sounds like what people are complaining about today doesn't
it? ... classical liberal thought of the Framers isn't it? So its the
conservatives and not todays liberals that are on the side of the Framers
and many of todays Americans. Many Americans today have some of the same
grievances as listed in the Dec of Ind.

Your last sentence mixed "party label" and "ideology" (again) to
associate or infer something that isn't relevant

Of course its revelant ... todays liberal has nothing in common with the
Framers of the US Constitution ... todays liberal wants to centralize power
in the hands of the Fed Govt and have the people completely dependent. ...
healthcare, education, retirement etc from and dependent on the Fed Govt.
.... centralized power to control the people. The conservative is for
smaller govt and protection of individual rights. Today its the liberals
(Democrats) that are for centralized govt control while the Republicans
(conservatives) are for a more limited govt and less control. To the extent
that anyone still believes in the Constitution its the conservatives.

Conservative policy/ideology can adopted by any group---but the
policy, not the label it adopts is relevant

True, and the conservative believes in smaller and limited govt. ...

The major cause of most of our woes was "opposition" to change, from
the support of the crown, the support of slavery, to the opposition to
most all of the policy that made us great.

The above was classical liberalism and has nothing to do with todays
liberalism. Breaking away from Great Britian and freeing slaves was
classical liberalism which was for individual freedom. Today's liberal is
for central govt control ... the govt gives you healthcare, education,
retirement, gives tax money to favored businesses etc. ... central control
and not individual freedom.

You can call yourself a liberal, progressive or whatever else you want to
call yourself but in the end you are a Democrat who believes in collectivist
govt. control.