Rush Limbaugh on Seinfeld

He didn't mention that this was there intention, but he stated that 4 hollywood characters were sent to jail for having bad character, much like Mr. Clinton should be.

On Sun, 17 May 1998 10:47:02 -0500, Slorge Gridlock wrote:

And, as we all know, Mr. Limbaugh is a man of <sarcasm> IMPECCABLE MORAL CHARACTER. </sarcasm>

Mr. Clinton should be.

Such a sterling character our Mr. Limbaugh is...I suppose leading the President in marriages 3 to 1, and in public in- sults to women, the homeless and minorities by an infinite margin, gives him all the moral authority, doesn't it?

But you're forgetting that Rush's women have been MUCH more attractive than the "trailer trash" brought home by The Slick One!

Oh, I beg to differ. The only one who wasn't really that great looking was Ms. Jones. The rest of them have been some delicious babes, and my personal favorite being Gennifer Flowers. Gorgeous. Absolutely gorgeous.

On Sun, 17 May 1998 23:41:58 GMT, [email] (Alric Knebel) wrote:

You can't be serious. Monica Lewinsky is a fat pig, and his wife is also an ugly bitch.

plus Rush has more character in his pinky than Clinton (or pretty much anyone in the White House) has

I suppose you're correct, if you overlook his multiple marriages, his bigoted comments about minorities, his tendency to insult the physical appearances of politically active women. Yes, I suppose you'd be correct then.

Please to name a few of these remarks about minorities and women? If you're gonna huff and puff about Rush, don't use vague, mythical generalities. Please be prepared to back it up with quotes. Anyway, what's better....a power marriage of convenience where one spouse is banging 8 different partners? Or is this type of arrangement cool with you. If so, it speaks volumes of you.

Maagic wrote:

<snip> Rush Limbaugh has more ANYTHING in his little pinky than most people have in their whole body!

Alric Knebel wrote:

Alric - I mean he is so FAT his little pinky is So BIG

Please excuse me. My mistake. I sincerely apologize.

This is freakin' hilarious. You were mad at him because you thought he was complimenting Rush, then he explains that he was throwing a childish insult at Rush and you *apologize*? Oh, it's ok for you to say what you want, as long as you agree with me and immaturely insult people I don't agree with!

Classic. Some people have no clue. Rob

No, I was apologizing for INSULTING him.

And you need to take a look at what is going on, dipshit. You see, I can already tell which side you're on by your selective criticism. What you're describing is what EVERYBODY is doing. And the insults is what got me INTO THIS THING. Of course, you see what your pettiness needs you to see.

That was my point. You apologized for insulting him once you realized he call a person FAT. How mature is that?

You don't know a damn thing about "which side" I'm on. Besides, what the hell do you think? Should we murder everyone who doesn't have the same opinions/beliefs as you? "Dipshit" -- that's about the best I can expect from you I guess...

At least you admit it.

That's not character that's a booger.

--------------------------------------------------------
Solemnity is always used by authority to stop
critical thinking. - Matt Groening

Jose Bermudez                    [email]
Office of Instructional Resources         (217) 333-7963
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

You must be an absolutely blind-ass, dumb-ass radical right-winger, so thick-skulled stupid with hatred you can't see straight. If you don't think Genneifer Flowers is gorgeous, you simply don't like women. And whether or not you really liked how the other two women looked, you can't possibly see them as flat ugly and unappealing on any level. I think you just like make blistering remarks out of your polluted beliefs.

I modify somewhet my opening remark for emphasis: you must be an absolutely blind-ass, dumb-ass radical righ-winger, so thick-skulled stupid with hatred you need instructions on how to lift tht club you carry. _____________________________________________ Alric Knebel [email] _____________________________________________

Alric Knebel wrote in article

Can you say, "Stereotype"?

I knew you could.

Can you "blow me"?

What's not to like about a president that is running the 'most ethical administration in history'?

It's so nice to see that open minded liberals such as yourself have embraced the expression of all opposing viewpoints. If it weren't for liberals, I am sure that we would lose our freedom of speech to criticize a president when he has is so strongly implicated in many illegal/immoral schemes.

Geez, How much smoke does there have to be before someone can yell fire? And what about that darn Ken Starr? I understand that he waited *two whole years* after subpoenaing Hillary legal files before he actually got to search her office to find them. Talk about dragging out an investigation! Whew!

Read again. I'm not criticizing people for criticizing the president. THIS is the kind of right-wing blather I'm talking about; you flat-skulled right-wingers like to accuse liberals of the most un-American activity, which is historically how they've always done things: Prey on the stupidity of the masses. You make something out of nothing, and stretch it to mean all these things you need it to mean in order to make paint the liberal as something immoral. It really all stems from your lack of understanding. Go ahead, re-read the whole thread and see what I actually said. You'll discover that what you thought I said was based on your dull, low-animal, plodding instinct to put down what you can't understand. The truth of the matter is that right-wingers are so low-natured in intellectual bearing that they never really understood what liberalism truly stands for. And the jury is in: comparing the adherents to the two ideologies over the last ten years, liberals remain the model for modern humanity. You didn't see liberals bashing the wives and daughters of the presidents of Republican Administrations, did you? You guys can't contain yourself. You're rabid. You represent every loathsome thing contrary to the evolution of humankind and the promise education and enlightened democracy brings to our prospects. You are the equivalent of the toothless hillbillies who came out of the woods in DELIVERANCE. I equate your kind with that same dumb-spiritedness of the slugs that followed traditions instead of breaking progressive and moral ground; the white pissant pie-throwers in the films of civil rights demonstrations, for example. If it were left to people like you, humanity would still be in trees. Which is probably where you still live, where you glower down from the branches at those of us who walk upright.

Now, as for the president's behavior, if you think these things are new to the White House, you're not only a blathering idiot, you're a NAIVE blathering idiot. But you don't really believe all that. The morality card is an old political trick used by politicians to get people dumber than they are to turn against their political enemies. Those toe-headed people rely solely on their vanity and self-righteousness as a reference point. Smarter people know this isn't about morality; it's about looking for an excuses to bring down the Democratic Party and putting an end to liberalism once and for all. It's about circumventing the democratic process.

<Stereotypical liberal tirade eliminated>

It's people like you who give liberals a bad name dude. Can't you argue without insulting or stereotyping?

Rob

Listen. I've heard right-wingers verbally abuse liberals and liberalism for ten years now. I see how lame most of the right-wing complaints are. If anything, I'm putting fight into liberalism where my brethren have chosen to turn the other cheek. Sometimes my brethren don't have the quickness for it. I'm giving the right-wingers a damn good taste of your own medicine. And let me tell you, it's pretty easy. If you think what I'm saying about the debating tactics of right-wingers is false, listen to people like Rush Limbaugh and Armstrong Williams. Or watch C-SPAN during the JOURNALIST'S ROUNDTABLE, and you'll get a glimpse of what I mean. Every morning there is a segment for viewer call-ins. Rush Limbaugh used to get his Dittoheads to call the network and one-side an issue. Brian Lamb knew it, and set up three lines to make sure that ALL points of view were represented. Guess which side complained about this setup. Right-wingers. (Please note that I never use the word "conservative"; "right-wingers" are a different breed from conservatives, sort of like a retarded, bastard step child.) The right-wingers complained constantly about this setup, and for a while the right-wingers refused to follow these rules and jammed all three lines. The idea was to shut down the liberal point of view. A few times, Armstrong Williams was a guest on that show. On one of those visits, a right-wing caller called in on the Democrat line, and when he proceeded to brag about his disregard, Brian cut him off. When he turned to Williams and asked what he thought about doing such a thing, Williams smiled smugly and said that the right-wingers (the word he used was "Republicans" but I don't think it really applies) had to use whatever means at their disposal to "get the message out." It was one of the few times I had seen real Brian Lamb flicker from behind his objective personna; you could see he expected something better out of Armstrong.

And the right wingers have a tone when they say "liberal," as if the term denotes some loathsome thing in human character, when in fact it represents everything positive in it. My view is that perhaps some liberals are too idealistic and expect all people to be driven by a social morality eager for change. Perhaps they are a bit naive: Some people like things just as they are. I'm from the south, "born and raised" in Mississippi as they say, and I've seen people committed to the hatefulest point of view imaginable. When I was a teenager, it was damn near legal to murder a black man. There were a few very famous murders of civil rights leaders and it was impossible to prosecute them at the time. Though the Constitution gave blacks the right to vote, you'd never know the same amendments applied to the state of Mississippi. It was because of liberals that these things changed. Yet, for some reason, liberalism is now represented only weakly in the press, and sneered off the lips of right wingers. And they use the debating tactics practiced by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Armstrong Williams. Rush Limbaugh has done more harm for political debate in this country than anyone I've seen in my lifetime. All I can say is, his day will come. In the fifties, Walter Wenchall helped Joseph McCarthy name names. He helped McCarthy in his rise to power by publicizing the names and accusations, and Wenchall rode the jingoistic fervor to wealth and fame. But when it was over, it was over. When Wenchall died, he couldn't get a job. He was last seen handing out free copies of his column in front of a resturant. I predict that this whole right-wing hatefulness will fall by the wayside, but not before considerable damage is done to whoever is the most vulnerable in our society. Rush will be the first burden conservatives will unload. Keep this in mind: his TV show was cancelled.

Please, don't lecture me on how to debate. And belive me, in some of the more political newsgroups to which I post, liberals appreciate an aggressive voice such as mine. The slope-skulled right-wingers have had a field day. It's time to play ball. It's time to use the same tactics as our right-wing opponents. It's so easy, it's a crime. _____________________________________________ Alric Knebel [email] _____________________________________________

You have as little influence as anyone ever has who posts to newsgroups like this. Your opinion is lost in a sea of opinions, just like mine and everybody elses. Your characterizations of conservatives and right wingers is cookie cutter and boring. Would you be happier if we had a one party system? My money says that you would be. The parties are there to institute balance. Any deviation from this form of government is dangerous and unpredictable. Here is a fact that has escaped many on both sides of the isle---the house and senate are Republican. The voting citizens of this country have decided that they would rather have the ideas of the conservative party as opposed to the liberal party. Your opinion may differ from mine, but the votes tend to agree with me. Don't make any excuses for the republican victory, because it will happen again and again as long as the democrats continue to stick to their game plan. I hope they continue as they have been, because it has been interesting to watch. The democrats are a do nothing party and are a joke both here and abroad.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

Yes, it is only your opinion, and like a lot of right wingers, not a well-thought out one. You seem to ignore the fact that the voting citizens of this country -- for an office representing the WHOLE nation -- have elected a DEMOCRATIC president TWICE in a row. And the gains in the House and Senate are marginal, the result of simple minorities. Those marginal victories can be explained as the consequence of groups like the Christian Coalition and other right-wing groups, along with the likes of ittoheads, becoming heavily involved and highly organized in political activisim, resulting in political influence by a vocal minority. The left -- remaining complacent to their detriment -- mounted no such effort. So don't use these numbers to declare the United States as a right-wing bastion. It's simply not true. The voting population is divided almost fifty-fifty in ideology. And think of this: Why do you think REPUBLICANS were against the Motor-Voter Bill? Think about it. Because they assume that most of the people not currently registered to vote once they do register and DO vote will probably vote Democrat. Most people who are inherently apolitical are Democrats when you talk to them. They don't realize they are, but they are.

Liberalism is still a viable and deeply held conviction for many people throughout the United States. It is people like you who want to give the illusion that only one ideology reigns in the American mind these days. People like you want to deny the truth of our diversity, and you therefore provide me with the reason to debate the way I do. You refuse to see the most obvious fact. Therefore I choose to be rude in the debate: first, to match the insults that have come from the right wingers without retaliation for years; and two, since facts fail to impress you, it follows that hurling insults will have about as much impact on your mindset as shouting at a bowl of Jello. Nothing is gained, but nothing is lost either, and I feel much better after I vent against the stupidity of it all. _____________________________________________ Alric Knebel [email] _____________________________________________

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

The fact that impresses me the most is that in your blistering attack to expose us to the "truth", you've already told at least one lie.

Credibility is a precious thing.

Listen... I started this thread by stating that Rush Limbaugh mentioned the fact that 4 hollywood characters were sent to jail for bad character and then I went on to make the assumption that Pres. Clinton should be viewed in the same light. He did not make the comparison, though it was implied, I did. Constant bickering over FACTS is not relevent. Tha IS what happened on the finale, corect? There is a question of Pres. Clinton's character, correct? I hope you agree to that as well. Why do liberals insist on defending what is morally wrong? I suppose you also wholeheartedly support Clinton's efforts to get China nuclear technology.

What's this? ANOTHER contender enters the fray. Let me give this chump the one-two and get it over with.

First, Clinton's character: He's a politician. You've heard this stuff about his character because right wingers want to suddenly make that an issue; since they can't bring him down on policy issues, they hope they can get the public to turn against him on moral grounds. In truth he's as moral as any man currently on the political scene (I'm defining morality here in a non-Christian context). If that's the basis for "character," President Clinton has as much character as any other politician. As for his sexual indiscretions, you never heard the same accusations about the other presidents because the last two presidents prior to him were simply too old to have that kind of magnetism. There was however a brief mention of a rumor that Bush had an affair, but nobody harped on it as much as the current so-called "liberal press" has with Clinton's dalliances. And we already know about Ronald Reagan's past as an FBI informant during the time he held the office of president of the Actor's Guild; the FBI in those days was not exactly an ethical organization. In more recent times, his administration was riddled with all sorts of scandals, all of them far more important than Clinton's sex life. For example, it was discovered that HUD contracts, normally used to build low-income housing, were granted to Reagan's and Bush's friends in Texas, and instead of providing the indigent and the poor with shelter, the money was spent to build luxury apartment complexes. These contracts appeared on PAPER to be legal, but a closer investigation revealed an outcome not surprising to those who understood Reagan's approach to the poor. What I get out of a story like this is two things: first, that the Republican Party falls somewhat short of having a monopoly on morality; and second, that this belief that the press is doggedly liberal is a myth created to attach the credibility on the press if it says anything negative about Republican corruption (this bit of propaganda has worked quite well). The press treated that story just as it did any other story; when there was something to report, the press reported it, but didn't dig any deeper when the story went away. When the press does this to Clinton's scandals, the right wingers cry foul, that the press is part of a liberal cabal. If the press is so liberal and solicitous over this president, they wouldn't report the story at all and would simply stand back and let radical right-wing fringe rags have their say.

Second, Clinton's sale of nuclear technology: I think you might be vague on the facts. Admittedly, I find it hard to get a clear picture of what this is about, but I think it might be another example of right-wing bunk. China has had nuclear technology almost as long as we have. So I think what Clinton has okayed is some sort of trade agreement which includes some infrared technology which COULD be used in conjunction with satellites for improved missile targeting, but the infrared technology is not EXCLUSIVE to satellites and missiles. If you think China doesn't already have a fine missile delivery system, you're falling for the same apocraphal descriptions of Russian technology those of us who grew up in the sixties had to listen to. When I was a kid, the propaganda constantly being touted was that Russia was stealing all of our technology for space. Among other things concerning Russia, we were issued handbooks that taught us how to sandbag our houses against nuclear fallout, in case those evil, God-hating, Jesus-despising, baby-eating Russians-- out of their communistic disregard for human life -- decided to bomb the hell out of us to get our color-TV technology. What a book! It showed you how to wash your house down after the fallout-ridden cloud had passed! It showed you how dispose of the polluted water! It described how to dress if you had to go outside (which also meant recess would be cancelled, an especially potent image for a child). There were pictures of men with push brooms scrubbing the fallout off the streets. And the whole time "they" were preparing us for the probable atomic attack from the life-hating Soviet nuclear aggressors, we were the only mother fuckers on the whole planet who had ever dropped the atomic bomb, and we used it on TWO -- count 'em: TWO! -- civilian populations. Of course, as a child, you miss these subtleties that turn out to be so much fun to discover later on, once -- and IF -- you develope a mind of your own.

About this current alleged infraction by Clinton, I'm a bit guarded. What is peculiarly suspicious is that these new accusations came right after right-wing attacks on the sexual-immorality front seemed to be working AGAINST the attackers. Maybe they decided that they needed to crank up the allegations a bit: "I know! Let's accuse him of aiding an enemy, somebody who really LOOKS foreign. How about China? I bet all these free-trade agreements have really introduced these dumb Chinamen to all sorts of things they never had before. Like washing machines. And maybe some of it can be used for military purposes."

I can easily see the accusers going down the list: "Washing machine motors can be used in armored vehicles to turn gun turrents!" Nah, not scary enough; you'd be able to see tanks coming and their lumbering locomotion has no fear factor in our high-tech imaginations. We need something with a greater scope. "VCRs! There must be technology in VCRs that can be used for some evil purpose." Nah, once these Chinamen see Disney's POCHAHONTAS, the dumbing-down of the whole Chinese populace might be seen as a good thing, and we'll be right back where we are now: with a potential scandal that backfired, and Clinton looking like a hero. "Wait a minute! My VCR has an infrared remote control. Yeah! INFRARED! That even SOUNDS bad!" Yeah, you might have something there; let's see . . . we can work that up into a real scandal, where again we can question his patriotism. . . .

Don't fall for this sort of thinking without being critical. If Clinton had really done something as heinous as intentionally selling top secret technology to an enemy, NO ONE would back him. Stand back a minute and consider the bigger picture. You're assuming that China lacks infrared technolgy, along with scientists able to do research and development on it. I've heard these same descriptions of the Soviet Union in the sixties: that they lacked all sorts of advances, along with the know-how to develope them; that the technology they had was stolen from us. In truth, some of what they had didn't exist anywhere on the planet EXCEPT the Soviet Union. Watch THE RIGHT STUFF. There is a possibility that this sort of thing is going on again, but instead of it being used against an enemy overseas, it's being used against a political opponent at home. Consider it.

Alric Knebel wrote in article ...

Here's a little dose of perspective. I can understand your perspective, you being from the deep south and experiencing the things you have in the name of the "right-wing".

But (here's the perspective part), I live in the San Francisco area. It is THE bastion of liberalism (Berkeley is just a few miles north of me), and I can ASSURE you that there IS "fight" in liberalism. In fact the SF area is SO much on the cutting edge of activism (or "fighting") that this area is almost in a war.

My point is: don't think of yourself as being in a minority, and being a valiant crusader in the "good" fight (You said, "[liberalism] represents everything positive in [the human character].").

Again, I can understand why you would feel so vehemently towards "right-wingers." Honestly, I would too, if I'd been what you have! Sounds horrible.

The rub (as I see it) comes in the philosophy that "the human character contians a virtual treasure of goodness, and the way to a better society is to FIND that treasure." In other words it is *individual*, internal guidance as opposed to any sort of objective, external guidance. When we are left to decide for ourselves (ALONE) how to procede, we inevitably wind up creating a gulag of one kind or another (Stalin, Hitler, China, the Crusades, etc.).

Without external guidance, we are at the mercy of whatever those in power decide.

The end.

Blaze

Blaze, with a kind response like yours dropped into the middle of all this shelling, I'm tempted to rethink my tactics and give up name-calling. But the key word here is "tempted."

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

But I seem to recall:

It's somewhat funny watching you attempt to build your credibility while posting such obvious lies.

Okay, this seems to have stuck in your craw. Let me clear it up. What I meant was, my blistering attacks are toward those I consider "right wingers." Okay. Is it all better now? I happen to respect conservatism.

So, finally: THIS is the "lie" you think I told, the one you hold so precious to your argument? And you want to rest your whole rebuttal on that ONE statement, and claim I lack credibility based on THAT? Even when citing your own example of the "proof" of my perfidy, you show your true colors by pluralizing it, exaggerating it's importance to the debate. Dude, you proved YOURSELF. But you're argument is as weak as your character. A FAIR reading (if you're capable of that) of all of my posts in this debate will prove that at no time did I level a harsh criticism toward CONSERVATIVES. Any double-barrelled retort was pointed directly at the knuckle-dragging right wingers who blast with ungliness liberal politicians, their wives, and their children with no argument beyond a simian, dull-eyed hatefulness. Re-read my posts and see if what I say isn't true.

And one more thing: You last few posts (pretty sad samples, I might add) show that you have a selective and extremely lop-sided point of view. You posture that you're this voice of reason when you're actually guilty of all the things of which you're ACCUSING me. In fact, the people I'm addressing in these posts are just as guilty as YOU are. You lack integrity, so you exaggerate what I've said to make it mean something I didn't intend, then you attack MY integrity because what I said fell short of what you intentionally misinterpretted it to mean. Sorry, Neanderthal, it won't work. I've seen it before; that method is one of Rush's favorites.

[email] wrote:

Actually it's people like Limbaugh and Gingrich who give liberals a bad name.

Well, they call liberals bad names anyway.

BTW, I heard this morning that Newt's thinking about running for president. I laughed so hard that, not only did milk come out of my nose, but I actually passed a whole Frosted Flake through my left nostril! Classic! ------------------------------------------ [email] (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)

(snip)

You know, you'd be a lot more credible if you lost the angry name calling. Stick to your ideological guns, fire from both barrels, but lose the whiney name calling. And for what it's worth, I could care less whose mouth Bill shoots off into while in office, but there are a number of other scandals brewing that have nothing to do with morality, except in the sense of selling out your country, and don't bother bringing up what the Republicans have done, a pox on them, too, IMHO. But right now Clinton's got the watch and what I see makes me want to hurl technicolor chunks.

And not only that, the last episode of Seinfeld sucked.

The dull-low animal plodding is on the part of people who lump conservatives, or any class of people into one category and launch insult tirades toward people who express differences with their opinion. A shorter term for these qualities is AKA "bigotry". If the shoe fits, Alric.

And further more . . . all of that stuff I said, and you pick ONE thing to remark on. Another thingn: If you notice, I never use the word "conservative." I use the term "right-wingers" to denote people who buy the "Reverend" Jerry Falwell's video. I use "right-wingers" to denote people who like to stir religion and conservative politics and religion into a swirling patriotic vortex absorbing all debate.

Filled with hatred? I just called Monica a fat pig and Hillary an ugly bitch. That's just opinion. I don't hate them. I see you're a little sensitive. Oh. I almost forgot. Gennifer Flowers is a whore too.

Now hold on just a minute. I am not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Sure I can.

Well, that's a shame.

No. I have sight.

No. I am bright. Oh, maybe not academically speaking, but I am perceptive. I can always tell when someone is uncomfortable at a party.

My politics are a secret.

Usually I feel light headed.

The only thing I really hate are internet trolls.

My new caddy is helping me with that.

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

Except for this time:

I suppose only one time can mean the same as never.

So you're really not as "left-wing" as you claim?

Now, I wonder which side YOU'RE on, liberal or conservative . . . let's see . . . is there any way I can tell?

LOL...this guy isn't worth the small amount of energy it takes to flame back. I flick him away like the little manure dwelling fly he is.

So based on your logic, anyone who is a liberal is insulting, childish and swears at people...like you? C'mon, I bet you'd guess wrong about me just because I disagree with your behavior!

Rob

No liberal would disagree with my tactics because as a liberal, that person would know that this type of debate has been going on for nearly fifteen years now, with liberals being on the receiving end of the most viscious attacks. So, if you disagree with me, you're not MUCH of a liberal, or you would be in these debates more often. Not only that, you've selected to interpret what I've said completely out of context, ignoring the remarks that inspired my interjection into this debate. For myself, a debate like this doesn't belong here. But look closely at it, to its beginning. Which group -- the left or right -- introduced this discussion where it doesn't belong, and which group initiated ugliness? Which group can't resist putting down liberal politics and politicians, including their wives and daughters? When you answer that question, you'll understand my committed stance to harangue at every oppurtunity the same-styled insults the right wingers are so fond of. And to tell you the truth, you're not getting my best: I'm holding back because the discussion doesn't belong here.

Alric Knebel wrote in article

This is an common NG disagreement! :-) I am of the mind that it doesn't really matter WHERE topics drift. IF the off-topic posts become widespread, it is polite for those involved to move the discussions elsewhere (in which case you lose 99.9% of those involved in the thread), but if others in the NG don't want to read the posts, they don't have to.

My $0.02 :-)

Blaze

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

And I'm sure they appreciate your tactics, as well. I'm sure they truly appreciate you showing the rest of the world what being a "liberal" is all about.

I love it when mature, intelligent people such as yourself resort to the old, "Well, he started it" strategy. It worked as a child. It's gotta work as an adult.

No, please, get it all out. Don't hold back. Give us your best. We're all learning a great deal.

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

Ah, more words of wisdom from the master.

So, it is all about choosing sides, is it? Thank you for clearing away the fog that has blinded us for so long. Thank you for showing us that there are no shades of gray in our lives. Thank you for showing us that everything is as simple as black-and-white and choosing sides. That certainly releves us of the task of thinking for ourselves and coming to our own conclusions.

Well, as long as we're not anally focused . . .

Yes, please do. Talk about it.

Convey for us, if you will, how your self-righteous opinion which allows no room for question, isn't one-sided.

And then, please, convey for us how you see another person adding their opinion as being one-sided . . . even though it actually does add another side to the argument.

Seems to me that an argument or issue is only one-sided when one person resorts to insults and hostilities in order to quieten another's opinion.

You're ridiculous. If it's not about choosing sides, why are you even in this discussion clearly against ME! YOU must be on the OTHER side. You're ridiculous.

Whatever. There is no way you can label people like you are trying to. That is the point netabuzer was trying to make. Some people embrace ideals from both sides of the spectrum. It's not about choosing sides as you so blindly stated, it's about establishing your own ideals which you believe in.

Hypothetically, if I am pro-abortion but anti-welfare, what side am I on? There are infinite combinations of ideals one can hold which cannot be labeled liberal nor conservative.

What confuses me about far left liberalism is the struggle between personal freedom and governmental control. Liberals often preach about personal freedom, but support taxes, welfare, wasteful spending etc. Everything that the government is involved in cannot guarantee personal freedom IMO. Additionally, how much personal freedom do you allow with so many different types of people, customs, preferences, etc. It's a near impossible task to satisfy everyone, because often personal freedoms of one group encroach upon personal freedoms of others,

Conservatism often has it reversed from liberalism: less government, but less personal personal freedom. However, economically, conservatism makes more sense to me oftentimes, but not always morally.

One other thing that pure conservatives and pure liberals often forget is that: Just as not all liberals are communists, neither are all conservatives racists and vice-versa.

Liberalism and conservatism are often paradoxical and one-sided (sorta like you!) and that's why I do not choose to label myself as either. I describe myself as a person who has his own set of ideals.

Let me introduce you: Alric, KillFile ... KillFile, Alric

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

Thank you for baring your soul and showing us the enlightened, compassionate, respectful human being you truly are. It's comforting to know that there are still people like you in the world who choose not to incite hostility and fan the flames of hatred. It lifts my soul to see that there are others, like you, who can maintain civility and a healthy respect for human dignity and respect.

Although your words are inspiring on the surface, the true beauty of your wisdom is revealed the more that you continue to expose the love for others that truly dominates your spirit.

Can you "blow me"?

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

Please, let's leave your personal fantasies out of this debate.

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

Leave it to a left-wing extremist to attempt to turn someone's opinion about a woman's looks into a political soapbox.

Hehe . . . a closet homophobe at that.

No respect for other's points of views . . .

Attacks others belief systems . . .

Typical leftist response . . .

Typical right-wing response: defends the act of unleashing in that knuckle-dragging way of theirs a disparaging tirade against certain woman, and then pretends that the fact that the women represented the left wasn't the motivation for it. You have to laugh at the lameness of it. He must think everybody has the same critical skills as "Dittoheads."

And you're such a quippy shit-for-brains, too. Just because you're so pooped out from the effort doesn't mean you got it all settled. There's still work to be done, NetSelfAbuzer. _____________________________________________ Alric Knebel [email] _____________________________________________

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

Tee hee . . . I just love watching the arguments of the self-important spiral out of control. You never know where you could end up. It's fascinating, actually, to see these self-appointed authoritarians teeter on the edge . . . lost somewhere between something and nothing.

Teeter, teeter, teeter . . .

Thanks. I did my best to call attention to it.

Nah. I do, however, think that most people, like me, can recognize a pontificating, self-serving, self-righteous, attention-starved social misfit when we see (or read) one.

Thanks. And you express yourself quite well too, as a matter of fact. Why, I appreciate how you've come to teach us all about compassion and respect. You've made it clear to all that you truly believe, and practice, what you preach.

Not pooped out . . . I just generally think through much of what I write before actually posting it for a large audience to read. Pretty much the same concept as "think about what you say before you say it".

And, although I do participate in the Seinfled group because of a strong desire to help others here develop solutions for all the world's problems, I don't actually think that I, myself, has "got it all settled".

You, on the other hand, have chosen to bless us with your omnipotence and great wisdom. We are thankful that you, at least, have "got it all settled". We shall snatch hungrily at the tiny crumbs of wisdom that fall from your lips. We shall learn from you.

Thank you, oh great enlightened one.

I am humbled in your presence.

I'm afraid you've once again misrepresented me. I'm not trying to teach "compassion and respect"; that's a hopeless mission. My intention is to RETALIATE. I have never stated otherwise, and I practice what I preach with vigor. I've posted elsewhere about this tactic of yours (the term "tactic" imbuing your shallow ploy with far greater dignity than it earned) of purposely misinterpretting my intentions then blaming me for falling short of them. You're a silly Limbaugh wannabe. _____________________________________________ Alric Knebel [email] _____________________________________________

On Tue, 19 May 1998 21:59:56 GMT, [email] (Alric Knebel) wrote:

Filled with hatred? I just called Monica a fat pig and Hillary an ugly bitch. That's just opinion. I don't hate them. I see you're a little sensitive. Oh. I almost forgot. Gennifer Flowers is a whore too.

Now hold on just a minute. I am not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Sure I can.

Well, that's a shame.

No. I have sight.

No. I am bright. Oh, maybe not academically speaking, but I am perceptive. I can always tell when someone is uncomfortable at a party.

My politics are a secret.

Usually I feel light headed.

The only thing I really hate are internet trolls.

My new caddy is helping me with that.

Clever response. Actually showed orginality, but I'll have to deduct points for the quippy composition. Smugness is to easy on the internet, so it shows laziness on your part. _____________________________________________ Alric Knebel [email] _____________________________________________

As opposed to your spew, Alric, which demonstrates kindness, compassion, and well formed reasoning....sheesh. I love these Clinton apologists!! They make me look brilliant!!

[email] (Alric Knebel) writes:

Nice comeback.

Wow. I read it a second time, a third, a fourth. Each time I am struck by how profound it is. You must truly dig deep within your very existence to pull out a comeback like that.

I'm speechless. I am without speech.

(Meditate): "Sometimes less is more."

In article , [email] (GP MVP) wrote:

Hey, this cruel language is out of line. Would you like it if someone posted nasty comments about your appearance, or that of your mother and sister? Take Karate classes to get some self-control and self-respect, and you will find it easier to respect others. NJ

Hey, if you have any trouble finding reasons to dislike Limbaugh...

...then you must be brain dead. No really, get a hold of a copy of Al Franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". You will not be disappointed. Franken has a way of even making staunch ditto-heads question why they ever liked him in the first place. And it's laugh out loud funny. ------------------------------------------ [email] (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)

While I am no big fan of Limbaugh, I think Al Franken is the biggest loser that Hollywood has ever produced. At least he will have tons of free time to write another book, as his series was cancelled for lack of viewership. HAHAHAHA. Gee, maybe he can write another book, and this time use Howard Sterns name in the title, so more fools will rush out to buy that one too. This is not a slam on you, but Al Franken, on his own merit, is less funny than Warren Beatty, and that is so sad.

Yeah right, you're no Limbaugh fan. I've listened to that blowhole enough to know his schtick: Clinton is behind everything and everyone evil.

You remind me of a few people I've heard who called in to Limbaugh and would say something to the effect that "I was a loyal democrat until Clinton became president". That's such bullshit. Any loyal democrat who would be disgusted by Clinton would be far more likely to turn to an old school liberal democrat like Gephardt than a bitter consevative like Limbaugh. They use that opening statement to establish a false credibility.

Being from Missouri, I can say that I would rather have Clintoon than that idiot commie little Dickie Gephardt. But there ARE no Democrats who are disgusted by Clintoon. They follow him like little robots, because they ARE little robots. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Come on you Clintoon supporters, think for yourselves!

P.S. I haven't listened to Limbaugh for over two years because he has become too much of a liberal.

Slorge Gridlock wrote in article ...

CHRIST, talk about a fucking one-track mind...

MjT

Blah blah blah......

So, basically, you're saying he's a politician and therefore lacking character......you're agreeing with me. I didn't say anything about any other politicians. Yet you're defending him. Don't you think the office of the Presidency should be on a higher moral level than that of "politician"? Would you want your daughter screwing around with the president?

blah, blah, blah...

Get your facts straight. China had not been able to launch long range nuclear weapons to the US previous to this deal. They now have a dozen or so (who really knows?) pointed at my and your back yard. This raises the question "Why?" Why would he allow the sales of this technology? He wanted campaign funds from China. Where does Johnny Chung fit into this? Why are so many congressmen opposed to selling tech to china NOW? There were LAWS against this sale of technology and Clinton waived them. 'Oh, go ahead, they gave me lots of money' How can you defend him?

   Personally, I don't think good character is necessarily a good thing
in a politician. I believe the two best ``characters'' in Presidents in
this century were Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover -- both first-class,
godly gentlemen who were lousy, lousy presidents.<
   On the other hand, the greatest president of the century was probably
FDR, who was a lying, conniving bastard who cheated on his wife.<
   And thank god we had him when we did.<
   <
   Now that I think about it, Costanza would probably make a pretty good
president, don't you think?<