i dont know much about Rush Limbaugh and what he says. To me, it seemed he gets pretty repetitive and childish after a while. I have read one book "The Way Things Ought (sp) to Be" and thought it was ok. I think his radio show is petty to put it mildly. But also, i think it is a necessary part of the political system itself. the more all sides are heard, the more informed people are on issues. For every Rush Limbaugh, there is an opposite. Maybe not on the AM radio Torone has strapped to his chest, but somewhere in the media. be it Barbara Streisand or anyone else or a group of people. I think that a voice on one side creates a voice on the other. the more this happens and the louder both sides scream, the better we all are aquainted with both sides of the issue or viewpoints. If that was not true, elections would be a little more one sided than they are. i beleive though that this is one of the invisible forces that keeps the balance of power between parties.
like you, i was simply pointing out the same thing you are. Spending, deficits and taxes cannot just happen by any unilateral action of either party or branch of government. its a fun thing to play the blame game, but the reality is that everyone is collectively guilty, though they all try to portray themselves otherwise.
i also think all these arguements are necessary and completely rediculous at the same time. its the arguing itself, that helps define the center of a two party system. by defining each side, you also define the center. but the arguments are all too often short sighted, based on facts taken out of context, a lack of facts, a lack of complete facts or born out of plain fear, paranoia and insecurity which is frustrating as well.
i believe there is no "fact" which can be presented in a political arguement to prove a particular point that cannot be countered with an equally valid fact.
strangely, the more rediculous everyone gets, the more we all learn. how is that for a paradox?
Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 11 2002, 12:18 PM