"p-j" wrote in message
...


And conservatives typically label them as weak or some other variety of
adjective for losers.

Absolutely right. Nobody's praising Limbaugh for this, either.

According to Bush, he is a terrorist.

This is the kind of stretch that makes the rhetoric from the left so
amazingly stupid.

Po' folks get their homes smashed up and seized for exactly what Rush Liar
did.

"Po' folks?" Going for a little "street cred" there, P-J? "Da man dun
dissed joo, dude...Chill." (Yes, I speak Jive ;^))

Gotta love that rule of law.

Right again. Of course, you're being sarcastic, but that simply illustrates
how far into left field you've wandered. Rule of law == good. Anarchy ==
bad. Trust me on this one -- you're not helping your side of the argument
here.

As for all the whining idiocy I see you posting about Rush or Bush being
socialist, fascist or other nasty labels (through innuendo -- gotta love
innuendo --never give a fact or a coherent, logical argument -- just pretend
it's true and move on), I have no idea who you're listening to, but whatever
you do, don't drink the Kool-Aid.


"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - liberal Thomas Jefferson

Liberal? Muahahaaha! Once again, you're not just wrong, you're STUPID
wrong. It just "felt" like he was liberal in your pretend world, didn't it?

Thomas Jefferson, the conservative Republican framer of the constitution
that put the word "God" throughout the Declaration of Independence, on our
money, in the Constitution, etc. and insisted on limited "checks and
balances" government with a strong emphasis on states' rights was a classic
Republican. John Adams was the foremost liberal (Federalist Party) at the
time. Thomas Jefferson (Republican Party) opposed John Adams for the
presidency and beat Adams by eight electoral votes in the first turnover of
power for the USA. (Here's a link....learn.
http://www.poplarforest.org/Democracy-Adams/ ).

Next time, get your facts straight before you get diarrhea of the keyboard.

Have a nice day.

-- Stinger

In article ,
(Richard Cranium) writes:


Please try to keep in mind that the guy is only an ENTERTAINER, not a
political guru.


Entertainer and Rabble Rouser;

- Checked out his show, IMHO this guy can pontificate like mad,
but can't link more than three dots at a time...

May he have good luck leading a Drug Free Life.
If he's in a group setting it may open his eyes..

It's a free email host. I have nothing to do with them otherwise.

(BTW Clear Channel owns them and they are in the Top 10 worldwide for
internet radio).

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:51:39 GMT, "Stephen M.H. Lawrence"
wrote:

Duuuude! You're, like, so coool 'n stuff! KNAC rocks,
'n stuff!

I sniff a conflict of interest. You jealous that Rush has thousands
more listeners than you and/or your favorite station?

73,

S.L.

"David" wrote in message
.. .
| Oh joy. He saved AM radio. Call the Nobel committee.
|
| On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:22:04 GMT, "Stephen M.H. Lawrence"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Stinger" wrote:
| | It's obvious you're preturbed that he's been able to almost
| single-handedly
| | demolish your socialist liberal agenda over the last few years with a
| | three-hour radio show.
|
| Let's not forget that he also just about single - handedly saved
| AM radio in America.
|
|
| ---
| Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
| Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
| Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/03
|
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/03

"p-j" wrote in message
.. .
All I hear from conservatives is praise. Other than a couple columnists,
there hasn't been any criticism. But you don't adress the point. What
about condemnation?

Condemnation is something that most people reserve until they have all the
facts. Right now, we don't, so you hear something in line with
disappointment.


I know this is hard for you to figure out, but I'm not left, I'm extreme
right wing.

Gee, you're really doing wonders for your cause. Why not write a coherent
argument and list examples instead of speaking in broad generalities?
Attacks on Bush's conservative policies look the same whether they come from
the left or the faaaarrrr right.


I have to wonder where you think one of the most controlled substances
in the world came from? Doctors underprescribe opiate pain killers to
people in the last hours of their lives for fear of the conservative's
DEA. What do you think the pathway of Rush's massive addiction supply
was?

This I am in full agreement with you on.


SNIP

Surely you believe that an immediate raid by paramilitary
troops should have been done. That's what conservatives repeatedly
advocate. And surely with the explosion of seizure laws, in particular
by the Bush administration, if any illegal drugs are found, the mansion
and contents should be taken from the dissembler junkie.

If law enforcement had enough evidence, they would have gotten a search
warrant.

However, if you're asking if I'm for the seizure of property then that would
be a no. Lumping all conservatives into the same basket is as flawed as
saying everybody with blue eyes is a racist.


Yeah and of course, like Limbaugh the dissembler and coward, you don't
respond.

That WAS my response.

Based on this, have you ever thought about what it means? Bush
frequently dismisses the rule of law in support of "stability."


Let's stop beating around the "Bush." If you mean do I think it's okay for
our government to hold Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners, along with American
combatants indefinitely? Yes. Pretending this war is like previous wars is
a fallacy. These "combatants" want to kill civilians. That's just
unacceptable.

Trust me on this one -- you're not helping your side of the argument
here.

Trusting you would make me an idiot.

Nah, you're doing too good a job on your own. Don't blame me.

P-J, like you, I am upset with some of the social policies that the Bush
administration has supported. However, I know he's looking at the realities
of our political landscape. Clinton went to the right to head off moderate
Democrats supporting Republicans. Bush goes to the left to do the opposite.
I don't like it either, but I like it a lot more than the things Bill and
Hillary wanted to do.

Look at the last presidential election -- a skinny electoral majority almost
let Al Gore become our president. Bush needs a larger base, so he can
pursue a conservative agenda. The thing to do is to give Bush a strong
enough majority that he won't have to cowtow to left-wing agendas. Angry
rhetoric coming from the right doesn't do anything but weaken the chances we
have for a more conservative government.

-- Stinger