Left Wing Has Anti-bush Ad Contest

[Morgan]

Michael Moore and the socialists at MoveOn.org have hit new lows, IMHO, in terms of abusing free speech.

Per the Drudge Report, MoveOn and Moore are conducting a contest for the best 30 second ad to spread the "truth" about President Bush.

The top 15 finalists will have their "work" judged by a panel of judges which include Michael Moore, Donna Brazile, Jack Black, Janeane Garofalo, Margaret Cho and Gus Van Sant. Donna Braile was the Gore campaign head honcho.

Their contest website featured an ad comparing Bush to Hitler, which was later pulled once Drudge got wind of it.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

The contest website is at:

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/

a) What do you think? Is this free speech or hate speech?

Will there be a backlash against MoveOn and Moore? Or will MoveOn do damage to Bush's re-election campaign with these type of ads?

c) Should the White House respond? or ignore?

[KrustyKidd]

I think it's a great idea!

America is free and Bush is right and has nothing to fear. He is a leader, an elected one. Every lawyer the Democrats could hire or find looked at the results and not a damm thing they could do. If they lost fair and square then they lost, if they are so dumb as to let a close election slip away then they were unfit to lead anyhow. Imagine the Dems not knowing if it was legal to invade Iraq or not LOL.

Anyhow, the more childish crap they spew out the more they paint themselves into a corner with their own fecces. Bush doesn't flinch, doesn't dignify them with a response. I love it!

So the American public will have to ask themselves a question when election time rolls around; do you beleive a man who never ranted or raved and things worked out pretty much the way he said or do you believe a bunch of screaming and emotional actors who probably know as little about poitics as they do about nuclear fission?

[righturnonred]

Clearly I agree with Krusty's assessment.

I must admit my first reaction was along the lines of, "how dare they", but after the feeling of disgust passed I realized that most clear thinking and honest Americans would share that sentiment.

So, I say... bring it on. How deep of a hole can they dig themselves?

The radical libs and their demented freinds in Hollyweird are utterly shameless.

Perhaps they should follow their own advice and "move on".

I might also add that this pathetic group is bankrolled by none other than billionaire George Soros, the Democrats' new soft money ban hit man.

[KrustyKidd]

Anybody that compares another in West to Hitler has shot themselves in the foot. If the main point they have is BS then what else is not?

If I were the Left I would have shown a Swastika or something and made comparissons like that. There is comparissons, no denying it but to compare a democraticlly elected President shooting for a second four year term to a Dictator for life is childish.

BTW, the election was so close that to say Bush stole it is a joke. I can't believe that when there was such a close margin anybody could say that it was stolen. As far as Ioncerered, it came down to who ever had the better lawyers. It could have gone the other way and we would all be calling Gore an election thief. Clinton himself said that it was close so what does the left want and how can we take them seriously when they purport that somehow there was a Gore landslide?

[righturnonred]

As far as I am concerned, it came down to who ever had the better lawyers. It could have gone the other way

I disagree. It was the Gore camp who initiated a legal challenge. The election was close, Gore lost by a hair, so he tried to change the outcome through the court system. This is the favorite liberal tactic for circumventing the rule of law.

Libs say the US Supreme Court handed the election to Bush... Bulllsh*t:

Gore wanted selective recounts of ballots only is Florida counties that were Democrat strongholds.

Gore wanted overseas military ballots thrown out.

Gore wanted election officials to use dimpled chads to try to determine voter intent.

Gore even tried to play the race card by claiming that minority voters were disenfranchised because they had more difficulty getting to the polls.

Criminal on all accounts

The radical liberal Florida Supreme Court wiped it's ass with the constitution in conspiring in this criminal enterprise.

The US Supreme Court ruled to stop this alarmingly brazen attempt by the shameless Dems to co-opt the presidency.

Several legitimate recounts were conducted and the results were varified by every voting authority and media operation that Bush rightfully won the 2000 election. Not only did he come out on top, Bush gained votes in the recounts.

ENOUGH WITH THE ILLEGITIMATE PRESIDENT CRAP.

[KrustyKidd]

Hitler used the occult, Hitler burned books, Hitler systematicly executed millions, Hitler built a war machine out of a population and then tried to take over the world with the same, Hitler tolerated no disenting opinion. Hitler was to be in charge of a 'Thousand Year Riech.' Hitler never made any money.

Bush listens to advisors, Bush promotes learning, Bush feeds millions through foreign aid, Bush used an existing war machine with restraint - twice, Bush is in the process of giving back two countries in which he rid the people of the Dictators that were like Hitler, Bush allows idiots like the left to spew forth bullsh*t like they do because he is not like Hitler. Bush is shooting for a 'Second Four Year Term' before stepping down. Bush knew how to make money left and right.

I can't see where anybody can tell the difference. It's uncanny. You don't suppose that they are related do you? LOL, one last one. Hate to do it to the left but here goes;

Hitler was a war hero, Bush as they say ..... was not.

[KrustyKidd]

ARTICLE

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, often a lightning rod for opposition to the Iraq war, apologized Monday for posting two political messages on the Internet comparing President Bush to Hitler.

The head of the Voter Fund, Wes Boyd, said his group posted more than 1,500 entries in all submitted by "ordinary Americans" and that the two Hitler spots "slipped through our screening process."

So where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction you idiot? Probably hanging beside your freakin' car keys LOL.

"We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions."

Of course you don't dear, "No Blood For Oil," "American Imerialism" and all the other childish ranting I suppose you don't mean either.

[Michael Hardner]

There was another thread with a discussion similar to this one. Politics now serves only to entertain and shock people - they don't see any connection to their lives beyond that.

The Moore site isn't supposed to expand political dialogue any more than an episode of Rush Limbaugh does. It's tit-for-tat.

[righturnonred]

The Moore site isn't supposed to expand political dialogue any more than an episode of Rush Limbaugh does. It's tit-for-tat.

Drawing a comparison between Micheal Moore and Rush Limbaugh is ridiculous. Limbaugh has been a respected political commentator for 15 years and reaches 20 million listeners per week. Micheal Moore is a satirist and an uneducated hack at that. He appeals only to the liberal fringes.

The nitwit Moore is so repulsive in fact that the comparison is quiet insulting.

Let me ask you this: If Limbaugh is so ineffective, why does the entire liberal establishment try to destroy him at every opportunity?

To deny Limbaugh's impact is to bury your head in the sand.

Politics now serves only to entertain and shock people - they don't see any connection to their lives beyond that.

So what are you saying, we're all wasting our time?

I think that's an awfully pessimistic view.

[Michael Hardner]

Drawing a comparison between Micheal Moore and Rush Limbaugh is ridiculous. Limbaugh has been a respected political commentator for 15 years and reaches 20 million listeners per week. Micheal Moore is a satirist and an uneducated hack at that. He appeals only to the liberal fringes.

Rush is respected by whom ? Michael Moore won an Oscar too, so what ? They're both entertaining clowns in the political sideshow.

I notice that you called Rush a "commentator" rather than a journalist. I suspect it's because you know that Rush spews untruths at about the same rate as the other political clowns such as Moore.

The nitwit Moore is so repulsive in fact that the comparison is quiet insulting.

You're obviously too partisan to have this discussion.

Let me ask you this: If Limbaugh is so ineffective, why does the entire liberal establishment try to destroy him at every opportunity?

To deny Limbaugh's impact is to bury your head in the sand.

What is "impact" ? Brittany Spears has quite an "impact" and her songs are excellent "commentary" but she doesn't add anything to the political dialogue. If you want to say Rush should be respected because thousands of illiterate half-wits listen to him, I don't buy that theory. Nor do I believe that Michael Moore's bestselling books mean that he helps the political dialogue one bit.

So it is with Rush and Moore and the other clowns of politics.

So what are you saying, we're all wasting our time?

I think that's an awfully pessimistic view.

I think people have to start putting aside their political differences and looking at the political environment, regardless of ideology.

You think Rush is a valuable human being, so I would opine that you're too partisan to take part in that process.

[righturnonred]

Rush is respected by whom ?

Respected by millions upon millions.

Michael Moore won an Oscar too, so what

Given to him by whom, the same radical liberal activist celebrity community with whom he brown noses with on a daily basis? The Oscar, as a validation of excellence, means nothing, not when it's doled out according to which actors can demonstrate the most hysterical hatred for Bush and their country.

I notice that you called Rush a "commentator" rather than a journalist

Rush is a commentator because he injects his own views into news analysis. He doesn't pretent to be an impartial "journalist" like the real jokes Rather and his other network freinds who surreptitiously alter news broadcasts to reflect their own liberal views.

Rush spews untruths

Show me where. If he is constantly spewing untruths, you should be able to share at least one. I don't think you can. You may think he's full of sh*t because you disagree with his views but the man is not a liar.

If you want to say Rush should be respected because thousands of illiterate half-wits listen to him, I don't buy that theory

This is really an outrageous statement. If you had ever listened to Rush for more than 30 seconds, which I doubt you have, you would have a better picture of the kind of people that make up his audience. But instead you take Hillary Clinton's word for it. You hear that everyone, I'm an illiterate half-wit! Typical, anyone who disagrees with liberalism must be an idiot.

You're obviously too partisan to have this discussion

Yeah that's right, I'm partisan, I stand for something I believe in. And don't think for one second that you're some kind of moderate because you acknowledge that Moore is a left wing wackjob. It's an absolute joke for you to claim that you're any less partisan than I am. Your true colors shine through.

[udawg]

If you want to say Rush should be respected because thousands of illiterate half-wits listen to him, I don't buy that theory.

[laughing] Is the reason you always write it "Rush" because you can't spell his last name?

[Michael Hardner]

[laughing] Is the reason you always write it "Rush" because you can't spell his last name?

Well... not off by heart, anyway.

Is it... Limbaugh ? I think it is..

[Michael Hardner]

Respected by millions upon millions.

So is Michael Moore. So what ?

If the criteria is the amount of public support, I guess you're a huge Chretien fan then.

Given to him by whom, the same radical liberal activist celebrity community with whom he brown noses with on a daily basis? The Oscar, as a validation of excellence, means nothing, not when it's doled out according to which actors can demonstrate the most hysterical hatred for Bush and their country.

Right.

People who listen to AM radio are good, people who buy books and go to movies are bad... got it.

Rush is a commentator because he injects his own views into news analysis. He doesn't pretent to be an impartial "journalist" like the real jokes Rather and his other network freinds who surreptitiously alter news broadcasts to reflect their own liberal views.

So he deserves respect because he openly lies, rather than trying to hide his lies like the others. Got it.

Rush spews untruths 

Show me where. If he is constantly spewing untruths, you should be able to share at least one. I don't think you can. You may think he's full of sh*t because you disagree with his views but the man is not a liar.

He's a proven liar. There are many examples. If you can't see this, then you're a blind follower and aren't open minded to debate about it. This wouldn't be a surprise because Rush makes his living preaching to the converted every day.

One example of his lying I can remember is when he said that banks assumed all the risks in the federal student loan programme. He didn't have a clue. The loans are guaranteed by the government. When pressed, he claimed that there's a risk in that a bank that fills out the forms incorrectly could be held responsible.

Some risk.

This is really an outrageous statement. If you had ever listened to Rush for more than 30 seconds, which I doubt you have, you would have a better picture of the kind of people that make up his audience. But instead you take Hillary Clinton's word for it. You hear that everyone, I'm an illiterate half-wit! Typical, anyone who disagrees with liberalism must be an idiot.

I didn't call you a half-wit, I said "IF" Rush's fans are half-wits etc.

Anyway...

I'm trying to talk about partisanship and the decline of political dialogue. You don't seem to understand that.

Instead you want to say I love Hillary Clinton. Try to wrap your mind around the idea that I'm talking about BOTH sides here.

Yes, I've listened to Rush. He's an entertainer, pure and simple. He won't allow himself to be interviewed by real journalists because he would soil himself intellectually. But the problem isn't Rush, it's the whole game left and right...

If you were a leftist, I'd tell you what the problems are with leftism too.

Yeah that's right, I'm partisan, I stand for something I believe in. And don't think for one second that you're some kind of moderate because you acknowledge that Moore is a left wing wackjob. It's an absolute joke for you to claim that you're any less partisan than I am. Your true colors shine through

At least I'm trying to be objective. Yes, I agree with Moore more than Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter etc. but I think that the bigger problem is the degeneration of political debate into one-way electronic channels by all of the above.

Look. You love Rush et al, and you hate Moore et al. You demonize one side and love the other.

I think both sides have to take responsibility for the impending implosion of the politcal process. If you think the left is to blame for everything that's wrong with our society then there's no point in trying to discuss this with me at a higher level.

[Michael Hardner]

Rush (Mr. Limbaugh) also said that he thought the NY Times hadn't run a story on Whitewater yet, when in fact they broke the story.

This year he basically said that the Philadelphia Eagles kept Donovan McNabb because he's black. Smart move.

At season's end, he's headed for the pro bowl and his team had nine straight wins...

[righturnonred]

If the criteria is the amount of public support, I guess you're a huge Chretien fan then.

You asked, so I told you.

People who listen to AM radio are good, people who buy books and go to movies are bad... got it.

I implied nothing of the sort. Incredible. I'm saying that those who decide the recipients of Oscar awards belong to a very exclusive, politcally undiverse, radical leftist crowd, and as such the value of the award should reflect that.

he said that banks assumed all the risks in the federal student loan programme.

"The federal government instituted the guaranteed student loan program to provide incentives to banks to make risky loans to students with no assets, no credit records, no full-time jobs and no permanent address. This is enormous risk. The government helps mitigate this risk. But, the government will only pay off defaulted loans if banks have followed a very careful, very detailed, very exacting set of procedures of servicing and collecting student loans. If banks don't follow the guidelines precisely, they won't be reimbursed by the government and they are left high and dry. That is risk." -- Fritz Elmendorf, Vice President for Communications, Consumer Bankers Association [by interview].

said that he thought the NY Times hadn't run a story on Whitewater yet, when in fact they broke the story

Rush's full quote dated February 17, 1994., cited in the FAIR's own report, reads: "I don't think The New York Times has run a story on this yet. I mean, we haven't done a thorough search, but I -- there has not been a big one, front-page story about this one that we can recall. So this has yet to create or get up to its full speed -- if it weren't for us and The Wall Street Journal and The American Spectator, this would be one of the biggest and most well-kept secrets going on in American politics today."

Rush Defends himself:

My point, that as of February, much of the mainstream press had not played up Whitewater details while conservative publications had covered the scandal prominently and advanced the story, is correct. I plainly state that I don't recall if The New York Times has run a front-page story. And the fact that I overlooked one Times article that ran eleven months earlier is hardly indicative of a "reign of error."

My quote came exactly nine days before The New York Times ran another major news story on Whitewater and followed that with an editorial the following day blasting the Clinton Administration in a piece entitled, "Slovenly White House Ethics." New York Post critic Hilton Kramer then noted: "If we may judge from the catch-up reporting in Saturday's New York Times and the paper's fire-and-brimstone editorial on Sunday, it looks as if the scandals plaguing President Clinton and the First Lady are rapidly approaching disaster. Given the way the paper has shamelessly downplayed the Clintons' follies in the past -- even as the press was coming up with more and more sensational revelations -- I think we can assume that the situation has gotten to be too hot now to be ignored, even by the Times." -Rush Limbaugh

This year he basically said that the Philadelphia Eagles kept Donovan McNabb because he's black. Smart move.

First of all, lets not start with the distortion. Here's what he said:

McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

It was not a commentary on Eagles management decisions nor did he imply that Donovan sucked because he was black. In fact, he pointed out that McNabb was not a bad quarterback, but that he also wasn't as good as some were making him out to be.

Although Mcnabb turned out to have a pretty good 2003 season, Rush made the comment earlier in the season and was based upon his previous performance which at that time was mediocre at best.

McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. At the time of this controvers they ranked 31st so far at that point in 2003.

In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth.

The defense has carried this team.

Although ESPN Sunday Countdown was probably not the best place to interject political commentary, his analysis of McNabb was valid. He had the orbs to say what no one else could.

Limbaugh is not racist, and he's certainly not a liar.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I was wondering what made Rush "respected" and your answer was that he has a lot of support. Michael Moore and Chretien both have had a lot of support too, so I guess they're "respected".

I wouldn't consider Rush "respected" because he isn't taken seriously by the mainstream press.

If banks don't follow the guidelines precisely, they won't be reimbursed by the government and they are left high and dry. That is risk.

That's a stretch. But whatever.

Ok. Maybe Rush isn't a liar, but he sure shoots his mouth off without thinking too much about the consequences. He's also weak and irresponsible and possibly a law-breaker, but...

I'm more interested in the fact that our political dialogue has been supplanted by a chorus of single-minded ranters of the right and left. Since I started posting on forums like this in late 1999 I have interacted with many fair and even-minded conservatives who have changed my mind on more than a few issues.

This, I think, is the strength of these forums. They allow reasonable and open-minded people to reach a meeting of minds. And I can see that this was the synergy that the founding fathers knew would foster the best government. But media demagogues run counter to this. I urge reasonable people of the left and right to take the Michael Moores, Rush Limbaughs of the world with a grain of salt. Listen to them, then go and do your own research.

[Morgan]

Excellent post, righturnonred.

Hardner said:

Maybe Rush isn't a liar, but he sure shoots his mouth off without thinking too much about the consequences. He's also weak and irresponsible and possibly a law-breaker, but...

Because Rush offered a frank opinion about McNabb's ability that poked fun at the media elite's PC bias, the left went crazy. McNabb himself did not raise a ruckass which is rather telling. In fact I recalling reading maybe in a sports magazine that McNabb said he was thankful for Rush's comments, because up until then he was just cruising and afterwards he got energized and played the rest of the season really well.

I think the "fault" if you will lies with the people who responded with the "consequences" not Rush. Their politically correct biases and icons are so fragile that they could not tolerate criticism without having an emotional rage response. Rush is an opinionated talk show host. He was hired to bring that persona to the job. He did just that but the PC thinkers could not handle opinion that poked holes in their pseudo neutrality.

As for breaking the law, while that's true, his drug habit was related to a chronic medical condition. I don't know if you realize this but Rush Limbaugh had unsuccessful back surgery for herniated discs that left him in constant pain. After the surgery he became addicted to pain killers. Obviously he was reluctant to try back surgery a second time so he just continued taking more and more pain killers[patients develop a tolerance real fast], especially for OxyContin, which Rush was taking. In fact, Newsweek did a story in its April 09, 2001 issue about how most of the residents of an entire town in Kentucky[Hazard] got addicted to OxyContin.

Control of chronic pain is a controversial issue in the USA and Canada, too. For example, cancer patients are not given adequate pain control medication for fear the patients might become addicted. How stupid.

Similarly, chronic pain is a huge problem in America. I've read estimates from the medical establishment that there are anywhere from 30 million to 50 million US residents who'd be classified as suffering from chronic pain and many are not getting proper medications to "mask" the pain because of this fear of addiction.

Rush is a good example. Although he became "addicted" to OxyContin, it allowed him to be a productive human being. There are millions of chronic pain patients who miss work or go to work and do a bad job because they are pre-occupied by their physical pain. Society loses and individuals lose because of this peculiar mindset that considers medications metaphorically as "drugs." I don't think that's right.

Rush admits to having broken the law due to his prescription painkiller shopping, but I'd hardly consider him a menace to society like drug addicts or pushers are. In fact, it's unusual for prosecutors to seek jail time for this sort of thing. I think the left wingers and media elite pushed this "criminal" thing because they wanted to have Rush discredited.

I believe that this character assassination ploy was mean spirited and it shows that bleeding heart liberals are not such compassionate people after all as they like to project themselves to be.

Rush is respected by conservatives because his preserverence and courage in weathering for a number of years all sorts of disparaging"red neck" labels from the left made it possible for talk radio to blossom into the political power it is today. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingram, Barbara Simpson, Michael Medved all have to thank Rush. As do conservative voters across the USA.

Before Rush, there was nowhere for ordinary conservative voters to turn to to have their opinions heard and responded to. The media elite put out a certain message and they sure were not allowing for too much "diversity of opinion" as feedback, but for the occasional printing of a Letter to the Editor. Politicians, conservative and liberal, had forgotten that they were in office for the people. Unless you got active in the party, your opinion was not valued. But talk radio changed all that. Voters could call in and have their opinions heard by other voters 3000 miles away. And more importantly, they found out that they were not alone.

Politics is an emotional subject. Before Rush came on the scene, conservatives were robbed of the opportunity to speak frankly about political issues. They were robbed of hearing the other side of news. Conservatives were becoming increasingly alienated from the political process, which is not good for a country.

I'd rather read or listen to opinionated regular citizens than I would Peter Jennings or Dan Rather. The latter's brains are mummified.Talk radio together with news bloggers are a good balance to the bias of traditional media and emotional/intellectual distance of politicians who seem to forget to whom they are responsible.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, Morgan, you've done a good job of explaining the importance and significance of commentators like Rush to someone like yourself. There is a place for right-wing and even far right-wing views in the public discourse as long as they follow the rules.

Cheers.

[Michael Hardner]

Another thought - I have a friend who's a true leftist and he adores Michael Moore. In fact, I've heard him make statements about Moore that almost exactly mirror yours on Rush.

Maybe these types of personalities are appearing because the increased media channels are causing a widening of the spectrum of political discussion at both ends, including the attendant adjustments that have to be made by the mainstream.

Good food for thought.

[Morgan]

Hardner said:

There is a place for right-wing and even far right-wing views in the public discourse as long as they follow the rules.

What's that supposed to mean?

[Michael Hardner]

What's that supposed to mean?

What do I mean by 'the rules' ?

I dunno... Don't lie, back up your statements etc.

[Morgan]

Hardner,

It's not because of their breaking rules or because of their unsupported opinions in public forums that conservations had to turn to talk radio and news blogging as you imply. And I might remind you that it's left wing icons like NYT, BBC, LAT, CNN that have been "caught" for lying and omission of fact.To my knowledge conservative leaning media like Washington Times and WSJ and FOX News have not been exposed for lying.

There were no credible objective neutral forums that existed prior to the emergence of talk radio and news blogging. Conservatives sought out and in some cases created these avenues in desperation not because they were bounced out of public forums for uncivilized behaviour. Duh.

Even universitiy campuses, specifically the Humanities departments, discouraged honest political discourse that diverged from the left wing politically correct party line. Ironic , wouldn't you say, that an environment that claims to be the bastion of intellectual freedom had morphed into the exact opposite.

[KrustyKidd]

wouldn't you say, that an environment that claims to be the bastion of intellectual freedom had morphed into the exact opposite.

Yes it sad to see how so called 'Free thinkers' will go to extra ordinary lengths to ensure that only their view is heard or conveyed. I have read of Campuses where they will not hire Conservative Proffessors, some of these have a ratio of 95% Liberals to 5% Conservative. Hardly displaying the realistic national ratio.

ARTICLE

Using U.S. News & World Report’s ranking of the top 50 colleges and top 50 universities in the country, Young America’s Foundation has found for the tenth consecutive year that commencement speakers at these elite schools are heavily weighted to the left.

I used this one as it was the first to come up on a Google search. "Liberal domination Universities" is what I used.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not because of their breaking rules or because of their unsupported opinions in public forums that conservations had to turn to talk radio and news blogging as you imply.

I didn't imply that they had to turn to talk radio because they were breaking the rules. I do think that their opinions were unsupported in mainstream media before, though.

Didn't you agree with that above ?

And I might remind you that it's left wing icons like NYT, BBC, LAT, CNN that have been "caught" for lying and omission of fact.To my knowledge conservative leaning media like Washington Times and WSJ and FOX News have not been exposed for lying.

Sure they have. As much as NYT, BBC, LAT, CNN has anyway. These media are only left from your viewpoint anyway. They're actually middle-of-the-road. If you want left read Mother Jones, NOW magazine, MS. magazine etc. etc. CNN, and the NYT have been accused with kowtowing to the US government by the actual left.

And... are you right wing or mainstream anyway ? You should decide. If you're right wing, then the mainstream hasn't been carrying your views before FOX, Rush et al came along. If you're mainstream, then, well I guess almost the whole world is left.

...

I'm trying to concede a point here, that there is a place for right-wing views in public dialogue that hasn't been allowed before. We don't have to disagree on EVERYTHING, do we ?

The sky is blue.

There were no credible objective neutral forums that existed prior to the emergence of talk radio and news blogging. Conservatives sought out and in some cases created these avenues in desperation not because they were bounced out of public forums for uncivilized behaviour. Duh.

Ok. Yes, this is what I said above. I concur. I was just saying that I'll accept any point of view if it's given in good faith, that's all.

Even universitiy campuses, specifically the Humanities departments, discouraged honest political discourse that diverged from the left wing politically correct party line. Ironic , wouldn't you say, that an environment that claims to be the bastion of intellectual freedom had morphed into the exact opposite.

Look, before Reagan everybody was left-wing by your standards. Eisenhower was. Nixon. All of them. (North) America has shifted to the right fiscally since Reagan and to the left socially.

LBJ and Trudeau were big spenders. Nixon didn't really change much spending-wise. That was the thinking back then. Was Nixon part of the left-wing conspiracy ? I don't know. Maybe you can tell me.