quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that he may have had a bad source?

---

Maybe he should try and, I don't know, confirm his sources. Right, I forgot, he's not even close to being anymore of a legitimate newsource than Entertainment Tonight is ... he's entertainment!

Now ...

Sexist Statements By Omega's Idol

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."-- Rush Limbaugh, Radio Show, Summer/93

Racist Statements By Rushie-Rushie Should Hushie!

Rush Limbaugh has defended Klan rallys as freedom of assembly. Yet he denounces the Million Mom
March as "the manipulation of the collective American mind" [Rush Limbaugh, 5/15/00]. \

I'm kind of short on time at the moment, mid-terms, you understand. I'll post more later. If you choose, you may make payment of $5 by PayPal to [email protected]. If you do not feel these quotes have made the point that he's sexist and racist, give me some more time.

[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

quote:

---

Of course, Jeff has enough bucks, what with that deer-killing machine he rides around in...

---

See, now that was funny.

So was the rest of the post, but in an entirely different way.

Take this for instance:

quote:

---

Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased.

Again, give the government power, and it'll fix everything. Read a history book, man, 'cause that's been disproven time and again.

---

So, help me understand here, what is it you are trying to say?

And a clarification, should you want to refer the the Democratic Party, that would be a capitalized. That way we can avoid confusion when you talk about all democrats being liberal.

[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Frikin' spontaneous reboot. I meant to post six hours ago...

The ideas on Chris Holt's site do not mention the size of government, only the fact that the citizens expect the government to make their lives easier. They do not expect the Government to abuse its power and make their lives a living hell.

Then they need to read more history books, because they should expect exactly that. The government WILL abuse its power, if given enough. This has been seen almost invariably throughout history.

Liberalism and Conservatism is a collection of economic and social ideas. Taxes, Gun Control, Social Programs, Medicare

Yes, and the existance (or not) of those programs varies directly with how much power the government has over you.

Yes, it is the government's constitutional obligation to protect its citizens from threats, but why did this not include Aviation security?

Because no one thought it necessary until now. Of course, to some degree, it depends on the wording of the bill, which I'm not quite clear on. Is the federal government OFFERING to take over airport security? Or are they taking it over, no ifs, ands, or buts? Not that I think anyone's complaining.

One of the Liberal Ideas here is the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which mediates disputes and allegations of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination which prevents the complainant's right to equal service.

There is no right to equal service, because implementing such a right would require violation of the right to private property. Again, the government gains more power over your lives, the power to violate your supposedly inviolable rights if it sees fit.

Bigger government, right? Fine, I'll accept your argument there.

Good.

But this is an example of how Liberalism is supposed to work.

Violating the rights of one group (namely, anyone with property) in order to make another group happy? And you claim this as a GOOD thing?

The thing is, the CHRC and Medicare ARE NOT instruments of Authoritarianism.

They can be turned into such with minimal effort. You have too much faith in the goodness of your politicians. We know better.

Omega, I'll tell you straight, if you present these ideas to ANY political science class in ANY university, I will tell you that you will fail miserably.

We'll see about that next year. I'll tell you how it goes.

Finally, from Chris Holt's site, the definition of "Liberalism" was derived from "Libertarianism".

Yeah, I just read about this one in a book on exegetical fallicies: what a word might have meant at one time may have nothing at all to do with what it means now.

Liberalism != Authoritarianism.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying:

liberalism = larger, more powerful government -> authoritarianism

Which part do you disagree with?

Stricter security at airports means you have to get to the airport hours in advance of flight, that you're limited in the number of bags you can take onto a flight, etc, etc. How that isn't "power over the people", only the twisted logic of Omega can say.

Existing power that simply wasn't excersized. Unlike hotels and the other garbage you've claimed in the past, air flight DOES come under the aegis of interstate commerce. Thus, the federal government has, and always has had, the authority to pass laws regarding the operation and contents of airliners, and the authority to enforce such laws by whatever means it sees fit.

Right, I forgot, he's not even close to being anymore of a legitimate newsource than Entertainment Tonight is ... he's entertainment!

Entertainment that's more accurate than most school textbooks. That's some good entertainment.

Find me a news source that's made FEWER mistakes, on average, than Limbaugh, and you might have a point.

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."

It was. Notice he's not saying that this was a bad thing. Rush, here, is commiting the cardinal sin of oversimplification. Consider: back when sexism was running rampant, whenever you want to say that that was, the attractive women could get what they wanted through the men. The attractively-impaired women, however, had more difficulty. Thus, they needed a collective voice to get into the "mainstream of society", ie men's jobs and positions. Something like a union. Feminism. Thus you can legitimately say that feminism was created to give unattractive women access to mainstream society, and be correct.

Rush Limbaugh has defended Klan rallys as freedom of assembly.

Um... no. I think you mean that he's defended their RIGHT to freedom of assembly, which is totally different from defending them in general. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Yet he denounces the Million Mom March as "the manipulation of the collective American mind"

You got a more comprehensive quote on that?

Further,

a) there were only a tenth of that number involved in the march

b) I do seem to recall that their propaganda was quite... eroneus, but I can recall no specific instances. More research is required. Stand by.

Me: [/i]Again, give the government power, and it'll fix everything. Read a history book, man, 'cause that's been disproven time and again.[/i]

Jay: So, help me understand here, what is it you are trying to say?

Simply that you should never give the government more power than it absolutely needs, because power almost invariably corrupts, especially over long periods of time.

And a clarification, should you want to refer the the Democratic Party, that would be a capitalized. That way we can avoid confusion when you talk about all democrats being liberal.

But more often than not the conservative judges on the Supreme Court would strike down such legislation that they felt impeded upon states rights and property/big-business. One of the best examples is Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) in which a conservative court struck down a law restricting child labor since it was an exercise of power that Congress didn't have and that it was unfair to impose such regulations upon businesses. Of course today, no one would ever question a law restricting child labor. But it does show that sometimes conservatism can go too far just as liberalism can.

Or more recently if an old case doesn't whet your whistle. US v. Lopez ('95) struck down the Gun Free School Zone Act. The conservative court under Rehnquist, felt that Congress shouldn't have the power under the commerce clause to regulate whether or not guns can be regulated within a school zone. It was, of course, extremely controvesial not only because of the touchy subject matter, but because it was a slight break of precedence set since the New Deal. However, it was an example of a somewhat liberal act being struck down by a conservative court because they feel the Government was too strong. But I doubt any one would say that the act was meant to oppress the people.

quote:

---

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."

---

quote:

---

It was.

---

You really don't have a f*ckin' clue, do you? Feminism was established to ensure equal rights for males and females. Start reading some history.

quote:

---

Entertainment that's more accurate than most school textbooks.

---

That says a lot about American education, and not much about RL's 'entertainment' (both are absolute crap IMNSVHO).

quote:

---

Liberalism != Authoritarianism.

---

quote:

---

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying: liberalism = larger, more powerful government -> authoritarianism.

---

Note that Tahna said liberalism DOESN'T equal authoritarianism. You just indicated that you meant to say the opposite, i.e. that it DOES. Please let us know how it goes at that university...

quote:

---

Then they need to read more history books, because they should expect exactly that. The government WILL abuse its power, if given enough.

---

And the skies are just full of criminals, aren't they? I'd like to see you deal with total anarchy, since that is the situation you seem to prefer. Deal with it, Ommie.

quote:

---

You have too much faith in the goodness of your politicians.

---

While you seem hell-bent on this 'big bad government' obession of yours. Read the following very carefully:

Social programs, gun control, healthcare, etc !=Authoritarianism. Got that?

[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]

[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]

quote:

---

You really don't have a f*ckin' clue, do you? Feminism was established to ensure equal rights for males and females. Start reading some history.

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: fem�i�nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

---

But ofcourse, you knew that already.

However, it was an example of a somewhat liberal act being struck down by a conservative court because they feel the Government was too strong. But I doubt any one would say that the act was meant to oppress the people.

Depends on the wording of the law, of which I'm not sure. If I recall correctly, however, it stated that no one can have a firearm within something like 100 yards of any public school. That infringes on the rights of the states and counties. What if the county decides that they want all their teachers to be armed, and try that for a while? Dependant on state laws, that's their right, the school being a county institution, no?

Power's something of a zero-sum game. The more the federal government has, the less someone else has.

You really don't have a f*ckin' clue, do you? Feminism was established to ensure equal rights for males and females.

Did you read the rest of my explaination? Apparently not.

Note that Tahna said liberalism DOESN'T equal authoritarianism. You just indicated that you meant to say the opposite

No, I didn't. -> and = are totally different symbols.

I'd like to see you deal with total anarchy, since that is the situation you seem to prefer.

What, an all-powerful government and anarchy are the only possible situations? *L*

Social programs, gun control, healthcare, etc != Authoritarianism.

Social programs, gun contrl, healthcare, etc. = more powerful federal government -> authoritarianism

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:

Depends on the wording of the law, of which I'm not sure. If I recall correctly, however, it stated that no one can have a firearm within something like 100 yards of any public school. That infringes on the rights of the states and counties.

---

That it does, but then law is flexible and the Constitution even more so. Its an infringement by the standards of Rehnquist and others but not by others. Hell, the same clause used as a justification above was used by the Federal Government to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 196-(i forget the exact year). In several cases, the court (a very liberal one under Warren) used the commerce clause to prevent businesses from discriminating against blacks. In the strict almost Jeffersonian sense of the Constitution, it was most definately an invasion of States rights. But of course, it was needed. The states, and I mean Alabama, etc wouldn't have done diddly squat to prevent discrimination against blacks. At that point in time, the stronger central government was needed to protect the individual from states and local influences. Its just a case where sometimes the states just aren't going to do the right thing. Of course, today it would have been struck down and minorities would continue to have been discriminated in American restaurants and hotels.

Law is such a gray area of study. It is VERY difficult to say AND prove that only a liberal or conservative interpretation of the government is correct.