Debate over Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths.

http://www.rtside.com/rtside/index.html

http://www.turnleft.com

updated 4/28/96

Rush: 1. There is a distinct singular American culture - rugged individualism and self-reliance - which made America great.

Turn Left:That is part of the American spirit, but there is another part you conveniently remain silent on, the can-do optimism that things can be better, the charity and good-neighborliness of its citizens, and the idea that all of us, so different, are one nation.

The Right Side of the Web: That's right ... charity and good-neighborliness which has been destroyed by the extortion and Ponzi schemes of liberal socialism of the last 50 years. And one nation - speaking English.

Turn Left: "Extortion and Ponzi schemes?" Really. I suppose you we should have followed conservative socialism, eh? Once you read a dictionary and figure out the difference between those two political philosophies, I might point out that the liberal economic policies after World War II led to the greatest period of economic growth in American history. Also, if we got along fine for 220 years without an official language, why do we need one now? Especially since there are less immigrants now than during the booms of the 1910s and 1840s?

The Right Side of the Web: Well, it wasn't the liberal economic policies of FDR that got us out of the Depression; it was WWII. The longest peacetime recovery took place in the 80s under Ronald Reagan. I wouldn't exactly call Ike's highway plans liberal. And we got along fine for 200 years without an official language because we didn't have all these liberal multiculturalists screaming for bilingual education and bilingual government services, and we have never had so many Hispanic immigrants before who want to go along with the multiculturalists.

Turn Left: Adjusted for inflation, the 1950's were much more prosperous than the 1980's. Also, in the 1950, the lower and middle classes' incomes grew at a greater percentage than they did in the 1980's.

As for language, do you know how ridiculous you "English Only" people sound? You are like the pompous French, who have a committee to strike insufficiently French-sounding words from the official language, or the silly separatists in Quebec who get terribly upset if they see an English street sign!

It really is irrelevant whether the 50s or the 80s were better. The fact is that both were periods of growth. Do you want to take this country back to the 1950s? That is what you liberals are always accusing conservatives of. It would be fine with me to take this country back to the 1950s in terms of what this government is spending money on. It would be a great start.

As for an official language, I don't know whether you noticed or not, but Canada is falling apart over not having a singular culture oriented around a singular language. I am not talking about banning the use of individual words. I am talking about the official business of a country. You apparently want this country to implode over divisions.

Being rich proves one thing: that you are good at making money. It does not make you a better person, more moral person, it does not make you smarter, it does not make you more worthy of honor, it does not mean you are "more American" or more important to this country than others, it simply means you have money.

More important to poor people, because rich people employ others. Ever get a job from a homeless person?

Turn Left: Typical conservative response. Do you think rich people employ poor people out of the goodness of their hearts or something?

No. It doesn't matter why they hire people. It only matters that they do.

Turn Left: So be it, but stop pretending then that we owe the rich our eternal thanks for having the grace to be rich. There's no room for sentiment in the free market, eh?

You liberals act like we owe the government eternal thanks for what it gives us. By that measure you SHOULD owe rich people eternal thanks for providing jobs. I don't think that is necessary, but since you liberals are constantly running rich people down we conservatives have to battle your propaganda.

The two most important factors contributing to the U.S.'s postwar economic boom were the GI Bill and the Interstate system. Both were paid for by tax dollars. Taxes are not inherently evil. It is how they are applied and spent that determines if a tax is "good" or "bad."

And if our taxes only went to the education of veterans and paving roads, then no one could complain. Glad to see you on board.

Turn Left: Glad to see you agree that taxes are not evil in and of themselves, but rather a necessary method of raising money for a government.

They are a necessary evil - many of our founding fathers would agree. They would never agree with taxes going to redistributionist schemes. Why is it that the only government programs you can defend are the education of veterans and paving roads?

Turn Left: I defend many other programs too. Check out this list if you don't believe me.

And we conservatives have plenty of criticisms of these programs, but that is old territory, and you can go to many conservative websites for those.

What a totally silly statement. You may as well talk about purple cows jumping the moon for all the good it does you. Liberalism is what made America the greatest country on Earth...and I can back that statement up with facts

Then why are things going so badly after years and years of the New Deal and the Great Society?

Turn Left: You are thinking entirely too simplistically if you think that you can trace the decline of our nation to a couple government programs. There have been vast and irreversible social changes in the world and our country since 1930. We cannot turn back the clock. Blaming liberal programs for the decline of America is like blaming lead pipes for the fall of the Roman Empire!

Well - many do think that lead pipes did have a big role in the fall of the Roman Empire. I don't think it is a coincidence that all these unnamed government programs have made worse the problems they were supposed to solve.

Turn Left: Because many think something to be true does not mean it is. You of all people should be aware of that! All those government programs are a tiny drop in the bucket. Most of the grandiose programs (such as the Great Society) never had a chance, and furthermore couldn't work because they were poorly implemented.

That is the same argument I hear about the collapse of the Iron Curtain and Soviet Union. Perhaps they were poorly implemented because it was impossible to correctly implement them. Oh well. At least you agree the Great Society was a failure. Progress.

But there is such an animal as an old Republican. He's the character who wants the government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom.

Nice cliche. I suppose you want the government in the boardroom? And last time I checked, abortionists don't kill unborn babies in bedrooms; they do it in abortion mills.

Turn Left: Ah, you had to bring abortion into it! Abortionists and abortion mills? How about doctors and clinics? Around and around we can go. My cliche masks to real truth: the conservatives want no government interference in the "free" market and plenty of government interference in personal moral and religious choices.

OK. We'll call them clinics. They are still not bedrooms. Conservatives want the basic rights of individuals preserved against both the tyranny of government and the tyranny of the amoral behavior of others. These would include the right to life of unborn children, the right of families to own guns, property, and raise their children, and the fundamental rights of freedom of speech even if the speech is religious speech.

Turn Left: With the exception of abortion, I would agree with all those rights. However, there is no tyranny of the "amoral behavior of others." That is a concept which has no concrete meaning or force. Anyway, I support the right to own a gun, not to rebel against the legitimate government, I support the right to own property, but not to use it to damage others' property, I support the right for parents to raise their children, but not to abuse or injure them, and I support the right to speak about any matter, secular or religious, but not to force others to listen to you.

Your rhetoric actually sounds conservative here. Of course when it comes to actual real-life scenarios we'll see where the chips fall. Of course there is such thing as the "tyranny of the amoral behavior of others." You see it every night on the news when you see the reports of murder, robbery, rape, etc. The right of an unborn child to live is the same one as the right of the 10-year-old shot on the street corner.

It's not fragile in that there will always be an ecosystem. However, it may not be one that is conductive to human life.

It's conducive. And there is no evidence to suggest that the ozone hole or global warming are occurring, or even being caused by people.

Turn Left: There is plenty of evidence on the ozone hole. That is pretty non-controversial. The jury is still out on global warning, though. All that aside, isn't the conservative thing to do to try and sensibly conserve our natural wonders?

There is no evidence that CFCs released by human activity is causing the ozone thinning, as the hole size is cyclical, and as we have known about ozone thinning for ~40 years, before CFCs were widely used. The conservative thing to do is gather facts, not irrationally panic and overreact.

Turn Left: The conservative (and liberal) thing to do is to do our best to wisely use and conserve natural resources. Radicals on both sides can't see that. Someone who clearcuts an ancient forest is no better than a terrorist who drives spikes into trees.

Then the death of a logger when he cuts a spiked tree is the same as the "death" of a forest?
Weird. We can grow a forest back. It's just a bunch of plants, like a corn field. I am not for wasting resources either. But cutting down trees is not the same issue as ozone holes or global warming. If you want to stop cutting down trees then at least be honest enough to tell people what the economic realities will be.

Correct. But what makes you think that the Right has any monopoly on character? For every Ted Kennedy, there are several Newt Gingriches and Phil Gramms.

The Bible teaches that no one is without sin. The liberals like to make sure there that sin is encouraged as much as possible by the federal government, though.

Turn Left: Is that why conservatives want to subsidize tobacco farmers?

I am opposed to subsidizing tobacco, birth control devices, abortion, liberal special interest groups, and NEA schools. Even if you don't like it, you have to admit that Newt Gingrich is a better leader than just about anyone else out there today.

Turn Left: Newt has some good ideas, especially with regard to information technology. His problem is that in between thinking deep thoughts he tends to pout and act like a crybaby, or sometimes a bully.

Anyway, I am glad you agree with me that government should get out subsidizing corporations and industries in the free market. As for schools, those are a legitimate interest of government (like roads or police) and as such there is nothing wrong with them being funded by local and state governments.

Well - you fell for the media spin on Newt being a "crybaby" and "bully."
As for the rest - you sound just like Rush!

And the most beautiful thing about our national symbol, the Bald Eagle, is how it looks on top of my mantle and tastes on my dinner plate, right?

I hope you don't live in a house or use paper at all.

Turn Left: I never said I was opposed to "using" trees! I simply pointed out that it is stupid to encourage cutting them down for the sake of cutting them down

That is not what Rush was talking about. You obviously don't understand that Rush was trying to say that the creativity of man is at least as wonderful and a part of nature.

Turn Left: Anyone with half a brain could see that the creativity of man can be equal to the glory of nature, but it is also possible to say as much without implying that the best way for man to exhibit said creativity is by destroying nature!

You don't destroy nature by cutting down a tree. They grow back. They are just plants.

>Except for Roosevelt (both of 'em), Kennedy, Truman, Wilson...and...Herbert Hoooooooover!. I will grant you that Reagan was better than Nixon...well, in retrospect, not really.

I Notice that Johnson, Carter, and Clinton aren't on your list. I'll put Reagan's achievements up against any other's any day.

Turn Left: That is because those three Presidents are quite forgettable. Carter was the Hoover of the Democratic party, Clinton is the current president, so it is not fair to compare him yet, and Johnson was the person responsible for getting us in neck-deep in Viet Nam. As for Reagan, check out this site for the truth on the Gipper

I think that the Reagan page, and the experiences and memories of most people, among many other sources, support Rush on this one.

Turn Left: "The experiences and memories of most people?" What a wonderfully dumb way to judge a president...I guess Lincoln must suck then, because no one alive can remember him too well! Seriously, though, the Reagan debunking page is much more backed up with statistics and facts that the pro-Reagan page. Whatever you believe, nearly all historians give Reagan low ratings...of course, you probably will assume they are all "liberals" eh?

People think Lincoln was great because he was shot in office. At the time he was rather despised by many. Same with Kennedy. Your opinion of which page proves which point is just that - an opinion. I would like to take a popularity poll right now over who is/was the better president - Clinton or Reagan. And you are right about the historians - they ARE mostly liberals. Like that should be major news to anyone.:)

>Thanks for playing. I'll take the 1950's, when the middle class grew in real terms, over the 1980's where the only thing real was the shaft being given to 99% of the people by the other 1%.

Of course, there are no facts which back that last line up anywhere. The Reagan Home Page backs Rush up quite nicely, thanks.

Turn Left: This page refutes the Reagan Home page quite nicely, thanks.

And that page does not support "the shaft being given to 99% of the people by the other 1%".

Turn Left: It wasn't that bad...more like 90-10, which is still quite bad.

Which is still untrue.

>Correct. And eating only greens and bran your whole life will keep you healthy, fit, and trim.

Can't refute Rush here.

Turn Left: No, I can't because what he says is true on its face. But you are missing my point. Eating only bran and greens will make you damn healthy, but it isn't much of a way to live.

And I suppose low self-esteem, teenage pregnancy, syphilis, and AIDS are? I am not talking about celibacy. Try marriage.

Turn Left: None of those are necessarily caused by having sex. They are caused by having unprotected and irresponsible sex. "Low self-esteem?" You're not engaging in "liberal psycho-babble" now are you???

There is no such thing as "protected and responsible sex." Much as you might try, you liberals have not been able to perfect that, and you never will. Would YOU have sex with someone you know had HIV and trust a condom to protect you? I can't imagine you would. There is nothing "psycho-babblish" about the destruction of self-esteem by premarital sex among teenage girls. It is the entryway to a whole set of new problems. Ask anyone who has studied this.

>The famed Limbaugh sense of humor in action!

If the school nurse ain't handing them out during the summer break or over Christmas, then what good can they do?

Turn Left: The school nurse shouldn't hand them out at all. There are plenty of free clinics to get condoms. The nurse can point students there.

Then you agree that condoms should not be given out in school! Congratulations! You and I agree. Now let's get to work on Planned Parenthood...

Turn Left: Yeah, surprise. Most people (liberals and conservatives) would agree with us. Just because Jesse Jackson or someone says something doesn't mean every liberal thinks it!

Then I suggest you let your Clinton Administration in on this, because they seem to. I would bet that most liberals do.

>Correct. Ivan Boesky was never poor.

I would feel much safer walking down the street with Ivan Boesky than Willie Horton or Ted Kennedy.

Turn Left: But would you feel safe giving him access to your company or bank account? You conservatives aren't soft on white-collar crime, are you?

I am all for prosecuting obstruction of justice, insider trading, illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and fraudulently obtaining SBA loans. But enough about the Clintons...

Turn Left: If the Clintons did anything wrong, they should be punished for it. I am all for equality under the law. White-collar criminals are just as immoral as the traditional criminal types.

Wow! A regular Rush Limbaugh here!

>Sounds easy...I wonder why nobody has ever thought of that before?

I can tell you who hasn't heard that ... the ACLU.

Turn Left: The ACLU goes overboard sometimes in its zeal to defend Constitutional rights...kind of like the NRA!

The ACLU has been inventing constitutional rights for 70 years...the NRA has been defending one basic right. I don't think one can really go 'overboard' in defending a legitimate right.

Turn Left: The ACLU hasn't invented a thing, any more than the NRA invented the Second Amendment. Check your constitution, every right the ACLU defends is written there plain as day: the right to freedom of speech, press, the right against self-incriminations, unreasonable search and seizure, double-jeopardy, etc, etc.

Not so. The ACLU defends the right to abortions, gay marriages, euthanasia, sale of child pornography, the right of schools and governments to censor religious speech, the use and sale of narcotics ... I could go on and on. NONE of which are in the Constitution.

>Unless, of course you lie to Congress, lie to your President, disobey the Constitution, sell arms to America's enemies, and get off on a technicality.

Iran-Contra was a great idea...and it worked. Iran got garbage, and Nicaragua is free. I suppose you would rather see Nicaragua under the dictatorship and human rights abuses of Daniel Ortega. No one has ever proved or suggested the Constitution was violated. And lying to that Congress is like cheating on a Kennedy.

Turn Left: You are committing a logical fallacy. The issue in Iran-Contra doesn't have anything to do with Iran and Nicaragua. The issue is North lying to Congress and violating the law, not to mention the trust of his President. It may have been a great idea to trade arms to get the release of our hostages, but that doesn't matter. The simple fact is that Congress voted to say no to increased aid for the Contras, and rather than accepting this, North decided to break the law and get around it. That is the problem.

Except that North was never prosecuted with violating the Boland Amendments. And omitting details he was never asked about in an informal briefing cannot legitimately called 'lying to Congress.'

Turn Left: Regardless, North should have obeyed the mandate of the people, as expressed through Congress, and not "taken the law into his own hands"

Really? And how should Ollie have discovered this 'mandate?' Meditation? Ouija board? Summon dead spirits?

>They should be home baking and doing the laundry, right?

I suppose you agree with the Menendez jury?

Turn Left: Your logic: because some wacky jury in California made a bad decision, women must not be allowed to serve on juries.

Once again, you don't understand that Rush is being funny here. I think it is OK to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.

Turn Left: So do I, but it was listed as one of the 35; I can't just ignore it because he was trying to be funny.

Well - OK.

>Good values such as respecting others, appreciating differences, doing unto others as you wish to be done unto yourself? Or do you mean religious indoctrination?

"Appreciating differences" is PC psychobabble. I think that the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments would be a good start, but the ACLU types hate those....

Turn Left: The Ten Commandments and Golden Rule are equally psychobabble by that logic. I didn't say "liking differences" I said that we should teach children that, yes, they exists, and that in our society you don't have to like it, but you must put up with it.

Ah, but the multiculturalists are teaching that you must not only like it, but that they must be celebrated. I will put anything from God above anything from the PC psycho babblers.

Turn Left: That is your prerogative. I do not accept the Bible as the simple, absolute and exact world of God. To know God you must go deeper than that.

Really? I am curious how you got such a divine revelation. Read it somewhere?

>And it is just as well, because you are wrong so often that you must be Right.

Huh?

Turn Left: Pun...Rush is so wrong, that he must be "Right" as in "right wing"...a play on words, get it?

Rush is not arrogant...this is a play on his on-air shtick.

Turn Left: Rush is very arrogant in his public persona, regardless if that is part of his act.

You call it arrogant - he calls it confident. It ain't braggin' if you can do it. :)

>Especially the one about Communism being the ultimate threat to the Good, and the bit about the Steelers, right?

Communism is still out there.

Turn Left: Communism is dying. All freedom-loving people, liberal and conservative should rejoice. China is communist in name only, and Cuba will be free soon when Castro dies. North Korea's Stalinist dictatorship will be gone by 2000, mark my words.

Hey, but what about Rush's football acumen (or lack thereof ;-)

You are starting to sound like Jesse Helms. If the best you can do is make fun of Rush being a Steelers fan, then congratulations....

Turn Left: Your lack of faith in the power of freedom is most disturbing. I suppose you have as depressing a view of the future as Gingrich did in his first book, where he opined that the USSR would still be around under our grandchildren.

No one predicted that the USSR would collapse as it did. The Steelers DID make it to the SuperBowl. And I wish the liberals had faith in my own ability to spend my own money.

>And you are disobeying His commandments when you bear false witness against your neighbor on your show

Notice no specific instances given.

Turn Left: Check out the FAIRpages for examples ad nauseum.

FAIRs problem is that they are either wrong or just have a difference in opinion.

Turn Left: Or that they are pointing out actual incidences of Rush screwing up and you don't like that!

Really? I saw Al Franken plugging his dumb book on a morning show quoting one of these supposed "screw-ups" according to FAIR saying that "Rush says that nicotine does not cause cancer." FAIR must think that nicotine causes cancer - they are the only people who do. And there is still no instance of Rush bearing false witness against his neighbor.

>The problem is too much Religion and not enough faith.

They go together.

Turn Left: by Religion (with a capital R) I meant hypocritical people who, to paraphrase Jesus, pray loudly and in public so that others may see them.

That's not what Rush meant be religion. I would think that you would like religion, as it is from where this country's charitable history descends.

Turn Left: I do like religion. I think that the Social Gospel movement was one of religion's most glorious contributions to our society. Of course it had its bad side, too. Fundamentalism rose as a reaction to the Social Gospel in the early 20th Century.

You only seem to only like Religion when it says and does things you want to hear. I find it interesting that you are paraphrasing Jesus. Sounds pretty Fundamentalist to me.

>It is defined by the Torah which God gave the people Israel, and expanded on in the Talmud and Midrash? Oh, that's not what you had in mind, Rush?

And murder is immoral according to the Torah. But then - maybe we should not impose our morality on others and repeal such laws.

Turn Left: No, because such laws as the law against murder can be logically and ethically defended without any reference to religious-based morality. Check out Kant sometime.

Logically and ethically. But not morally. Kant did not originate the idea that murder is immoral. Some One before him did. All of the 10 Commandments, and every rule God gave us after that, can be defended logically and ethically as well.

Turn Left: Such as the law that one cannot mix meat and dairy? Us humans do come up with silly things when we try to interpret what God wants of us!

I don't know how you can be so arrogant as to presume to know how those rules came about, but you are POSITIVE that they did not come from God. You say laws against murder can be logically and ethically defended. But if I CHOOSE not to do so then they do not apply to me. So for them to apply to me then they had better come from somewhere else.

>And the only way conservatives win any elections is by misleading the American public and fostering fear and hatred towards minorities

Furloughing criminals of all colors and affirmative action are legitimate campaign issues. You liberals don't like that, so you have to use all the typical 'ism' cliches.

Turn Left: Conservatives and liberals all run toward the middle come election time. That is a simply fact of American politics. Conservatives are equally guilty in this respect.

Reagan never ran toward the middle. Neither did Bush in '88.

Turn Left: A Thousand Points of Light? A Kinder and Gentler nation? Not the usual red meat that some on the far right like? If you don't believe me, watch Dole's positions and speeches after he gets the nomination.

If I were you I would listen to Bill Clinton's State of the Union, any of his campaign commercials from 1992, and tell me if running as a liberal gets you anywhere. I can't justify Bobdole. He makes no sense to me.

>Not that you have to worry about women...how's Mrs. Compuserve these days?

Marta does not need the Patsy Irelands of the world. Darth Vader Ginsberg, Pat Schroeder and Hillary Clinton might.

Turn Left: Listen, at least Bill didn't have to advertise for a date on a computer service! Most liberals just have that natural sex appeal ;-)

Except that Rush never did that. He never had Arkansas State Troopers pimp for him, either.

Turn Left: Neither did Clinton. You don't believe all that wild conspiracy stuff, do you? It is as silly as thinking Reagan had an agreement with the Ayatollah to delay the release of the hostages.

If you don't believe that Bill Clinton had Arkansas State Troopers get women for him by now, then you have your head in the sand. No one outside the White House denies that one anymore.

>"Make your money with a suit and tie, make your money with shrewd denial...as long as you mean it"

Huh?

Turn Left: Nothing, just a quote from a song. It usually is the money.

Then you agree with Rush!

Turn Left: Yeah, he's not wrong all the time, just most of the time.

Judging by the responses so far, YOU agree with Rush most of the time.

>Is this why the past term of the Supreme Court has more judicial activism than any court in 25 years? Or is it only "judicial activism" when liberal do it?

What judicial activism? You mean the decisions that roll back the activism of the Burger and Warren courts?

Turn Left: Conservative jurists such as Thomas are engaging in judicial activism at least as severe as the Warren court's. It doesn't matter that they are trying to turn back the clock; they are still trying to legislate via the court. If it was wrong when liberals do it, why is it OK if conservatives do?

Again, there are no examples of anyone on the Supreme Court engaging in judicial activism, because all they have done is partly roll back the judicial activism of the liberals. Was Roe vs. Wade judicial activism? Why didn't liberals ever try to legalize it in Congress? Because they can't. They have not even touched that yet.

Turn Left: On a similar vein, why haven't conservative attempts to outlaw abortion straight up (none of this wimpy and dishonest scratching at the edges) ever gotten anywhere?

Because we still have too many liberals and too many people with too much vested in the abortion industry. We need to do more chipping away like liberals do with gun rights and smoking rights.

>The welfare system needs a major overhaul, no doubt. But lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Unless the baby hasn't been born yet.

Turn Left: Do you have a real response to this point or just a stupid throwaway line about abortion?

Welfare has made a bad problem worse. It must be thrown out, as the basic premises are what's wrong with it, like affirmative action.

Turn Left: Welfare is flawed, but if we eliminate it totally, do we just let the people on it die if they can't find work?

No - we let the private charity system expand to cover the people who completely fail. Only private charities can directly help people on an individual basis effectively.

>Progress is the continuing betterment of the human condition through technological, cultural, and moral growth. Do you recognize that, Rush? That's classical liberalism

That is not what the liberals want (e.g. ClintonCare).

Turn Left: I am a liberal and that is what I want. Most of my liberal peers feel the same way.

Classical liberalism is mostly like Jeffersonian conservatism, not like FDR-LBJ-statist centralized liberalism.

Turn Left: What I define as liberalism is a combination of Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Truman. What I define as conservatism is a combination of 1964ish Goldwater, Reagan, and Buchanan.

Those are amazing combinations. Jefferson would roll over in his grave at the thought of the New Deal. I still don't know what 'fair' is. To me 'fair' is poor people paying the same rate of taxes as me. How about that?

29. Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it.

>The object of welfare is to give a drowning man a lifeboat. Welfare reform is requiring him to row towards shore. Republican welfare reform is letting the guy drown and giving the boat to a millionaire to use as a yacht.

Ronald Reagan said that the difference between conservatives and liberals was that conservatives will through a drowning man a rope which reaches halfway and expects him to swim the other half. Liberals will throw him both ends of the rope.

Turn Left: Ha ha, too bad it isn't true.

It is.

Turn Left: I don't think it is. At least it shouldn't be. Actually, I would amend Reagan's line to say that conservatives will watch the guy from the shore and tell him he will survive if he really tries to, all while the drowning man is surrounded by sharks and high waves.

Really? And the liberal will drive the guy in a car off the bridge, escape from the car without saving the guy, and show up at a press conference the next day wearing a neck brace saying that he tried to swim back and save the guy (or gal) but couldn't...

30.Compassion is no substitute for justice.

Turn Left: Justice and passion are not mutually exclusive.

Liberals think that the two are the same. Conservatives believe that in the judicial system, justice comes first.

Turn Left: They are not the same. They are both virtues, but they are applied in different situations.

No disagreement with Rush here ...

>The Republicans are happy as long as the losers know their place.

Can't refute Rush on this one either.

Turn Left: The culture war is something that both conservatives and liberals agree is real and important. As strongly as conservatives feel about their side, we feel about ours. We will go the extra mile to defend the principles of our country, and we will win in the end because we are on the side of justice and truth.

Why was Pat Buchanan so vilified when he said the same thing you just said?

Turn Left: I can't answer that. I suppose because what he said was kind of a Pearl Harbor for the majority of Americans; it shook us out of complacence. Also, we don't want a war, we prefer compromise to battle, and comity to rancor. However, we fight if we have to.

Pat's whole point is that war has been declared against the moral sense of ordinary Americans by the ACLU types, the media, and the other degenerates. He didn't declare the war - he just said that it existed.

>And plane crashes are always caused by gravity, right?

Huh? Jesse Jackson called it a "rebellion." I suppose you agree with that.

Turn Left: No, it was a riot. But it was caused by the verdict. That doesn't make it right.

It was caused by amoral animals who knew that liberals would buy the excuse that "it was caused by the verdict." Even if it was caused by the verdict, the verdict was right and anyone capable of believing there was reasonable doubt in the OJ trial is capable of coming to the same conclusion in the first Rodney King trial.

Turn Left: I thought both verdicts (Rodney King 1 and OJ) were obscene miscarriages of justice. Such are the imperfections of our system. The riot was as wrong as the verdict. I say again, logically, the verdict precipitated the riot. That doesn't make it right, and the rioters were still criminals.

There is no moral comparison between the verdict and the riots. The verdict was correct, and the jurors murdered no one. The verdict may have provoked people's emotions, but the responsibility for those people's behavior solely rests with the animals and not in the jury box.

>Yeah, let's get rid of tax breaks on mortgages. After all, most of us just pay for our estates up front with cash.

We could afford lots of things - like health care - if it weren't for government driving up the price for things like $50 Tylenol.

Turn Left: Tylenol was a couple bucks last I checked. Get a new pharmacy.

The problem with Medicare is that the person 'buying' the Tylenol doesn't choose the pharmacy and doesn't see or pay the bill.

Turn Left: Some thing as a for-profit hospital charging you $100 for a robe.

That's right - same principle. No cost oversight by the customer.

>Which is why Jesse Helms should be under arrest now for threatening the life of the President.

Typical liberal-not-capable-of-understanding-a-jokeism.

Turn Left: Rule of conservative debate: when a liberal draws blood in a debate, claim you were joking.

Jesse Helms was telling a joke. I know that you can't understand that but it is true.

Turn Left: The same way the people in Israel with banners saying "Rabin is a murderer" were "just joking", huh?

You can't be serious in an analogy between the two. If you can't understand the difference then I can't even begin to explain that.

Which is why conservatives make fun of not themselves, but rather liberals.

And it is so easy, too!

Turn Left: Hey, all the funny people in America are liberals. Conservatives take themselves too seriously to be funny. They are just scary.

Rush is quite funny. I think you secretly agree, as you seem to think he is quite a threat.

Turn Left: Rush's threat isn't his humor, it is his influence. If Howard Stern started influencing public policy, it would be the same thing.

Again - no comparison. Howard Stern doesn't take ideas that seriously. Rush is quite sincere about what he believes, and makes his points with plenty of facts to back them up.