Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:31:59 GMT, Nate Perkins

wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

...
But that junkie Rush is ok, eh ?

Another example of the "tolerant, open-minded" left, eh?
Someone
who
becomes addicted to pain killers as a result of having them
prescribed
for severe backpain is somewhat different than someone who was out
searching for the next and best high, don't ya think? But, since
this
gives you something to beat on and impugn with, impugn away. Says
more about the shallowness of the so-called open-mindedness of the
left than anything else.

Let's see ... as long as we are indulging in shallowness and
pointing
out the failings of the guys on the right:

- Leading moralist "Book of Virtues" writer Bill Bennett has secret
gambling addiction

- Leading "Fair and Balanced" host Bill O'Reilly harasses his
coworkers
with sex phone calls and wierd "loofah" fetishes

- Leading political "moral" leader Newt Gingrich fined $300K for
ethics
violations, thrice married, served first wife with divorce papers
while
she was in hospital recovering from cancer surgery

- Leading conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh advocates zero
tolerance
for drug offenders, only to find he has a secret drug addiction
himself


So your point here is? That in order to advocate for improvements
in
society one must be perfect? Thus, no-one should point out any
failings
nor needs for improvement since everyone has flaws and failings?
Thus,
nothing should be wrong since someone who is in a place of authority
has
committed such acts. Or is it only OK for those on the left to
advocate
for improvements in society since to the left, morals are all
relative, so
only they have the "moral" high ground to dictate how the rest of
society
should function?

In several cases above, you have your facts wrong anyway.



- Noted "patriotic" author and commentator Ann Coulter declares "The

myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our
times."


Somewhat different tangent from the above statements. Or are you
indicating that expressing an opinion based upon historical facts
(i.e.
some of the Kremlin archives implicating many of those being pursued
by
McCarthy as sympathizers, to be kind, of the communist regime) is
somehow
the equivalent to moral weaknesses or failings?

Are you suggesting that blacklisting 'communist sympathizers'
whatever those are, is anything BUT un-American?

Unless you think that McCarthy had access to those alleged Kremlin
records, what is the point in the first place? What was McCarthy's
basis for his accusations?


- Prominent conservative religious figures Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson, two days after the 9/11 attacks, declared that the
attacks
were God's retribution against the US for allowing the ACLU,
abortionists, feminists, and gays.

The comments you make above are taken somewhat out of context.

Pat Robertson is one of the most obvious con artists I've ever
seen ply his trade--no better than Yuri Geller.

--