caroljane Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Michael, you say that the Republican Establishment does not like Rush, and I'm sure they don't, but that does not mean he has no influence on them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Michael, you say that the Republican Establishment...Graaaak...(Try Adam, madam...)Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Michael, you say that the Republican Establishment...Graaaak...(Try Adam, madam...) Michaellol Sorry. I bet it is not often that anyone gets the two of you mixed up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Michael, you say that the Republican Establishment...Graaaak...(Try Adam, madam...) Michaellol Sorry. I bet it is not often that anyone gets the two of you mixed up!Exactly, he is much smarter than I am! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Of course RL will be fine financially. But with him as their leading popular spokesman, will the Republicans be fine politically?Carol:I know that this is going to come as a shock, but Rush is not liked by the Republican establishment. He is no where near "their leading popular spokesman."Rush is a Conservative. He was completely anti- John McCain.AdamFurther to my misdirected reply to MSK/Adam (hey, that combines to "Madam!") you avoided the question of influence. Even a newbie can see that he has been a big power broker. In fact three years ago expat Canadian David Frum warned Republicans in a NY Magazine article that they were "conceding too much power" to Limbaugh. Frum claims he was blacklisted by Fox News because of this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Of course RL will be fine financially. But with him as their leading popular spokesman, will the Republicans be fine politically?Carol:I know that this is going to come as a shock, but Rush is not liked by the Republican establishment. He is no where near "their leading popular spokesman."Rush is a Conservative. He was completely anti- John McCain.AdamFurther to my misdirected reply to MSK/Adam (hey, that combines to "Madam!") you avoided the question of influence. Even a newbie can see that he has been a big power broker. In fact three years ago expat Canadian David Frum warned Republicans in a NY Magazine article that they were "conceding too much power" to Limbaugh. Frum claims he was blacklisted by Fox News because of this article.Carol:David J. Frum (pronounced /ˈfrʌm/; born June 30, 1960) is a Canadian American journalist active in both the United States and Canadian political arenas. A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, he is also the author of the first "insider" book about the Bush presidency. His editorial columns have appeared in a variety of Canadian and American magazines and newspapers, including the National Post and The Week.[2] He is the founder of FrumForum.com (formerly NewMajority.com), a political group blog,[3] and serves on the board of directors of the Republican Jewish Coalition.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_FrumFrum is not a conservative..."Frum had previously been a vocal critic of Republican presidential candidate McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate on the ground that Palin was unqualified to assume the presidency. Speaking of Palin's performance during the campaign, Frum stated, "I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States."[29]"In 2010, Frum was involved in the formation of the centrist group No Labels, as a "founding leader."[34][35] "This No Labels group is a joke. He is tight with the RINO and country club entrenched Republican Establishment.Rush is aligned with the old line Goldwater - Reagan - Palin - Rubio - wing of the party. This is a struggle for the soul of the Republican party.Frum totally misreads the tea party, he is a political "slut" - just had to get the word of the day in here someplace.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Carol:David J. Frum (pronounced /ˈfrʌm/; born June 30, 1960) is a Canadian American journalist active in both the United States and Canadian political arenas. A former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, he is also the author of the first "insider" book about the Bush presidency. His editorial columns have appeared in a variety of Canadian and American magazines and newspapers, including the National Post and The Week.[2] He is the founder of FrumForum.com (formerly NewMajority.com), a political group blog,[3] and serves on the board of directors of the Republican Jewish Coalition.[4] http://en.wikipedia....wiki/David_FrumFrum is not a conservative..."Frum had previously been a vocal critic of Republican presidential candidate McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate on the ground that Palin was unqualified to assume the presidency. Speaking of Palin's performance during the campaign, Frum stated, "I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States."[29]"In 2010, Frum was involved in the formation of the centrist group No Labels, as a "founding leader."[34][35] "This No Labels group is a joke. He is tight with the RINO and country club entrenched Republican Establishment.Rush is aligned with the old line Goldwater - Reagan - Palin - Rubio - wing of the party. This is a struggle for the soul of the Republican party.Frum totally misreads the tea party, he is a political "slut" - just had to get the word of the day in here someplace.AdamNo argument about Frum. I don't like him, and I have a certain amount of schadenfreude that he never became the eminence grise he thought he would in his "Axis of Evil " days.But that does not discredit his observation that Rush (who was being called the "de facto leader" of the GOP around that time) called a lot of shots. You are pointing out the difference between the Republican Establishment and the conservative/ tea partiers and I understand that. But I am talking about REPUBLICANS period - such as the chairman of the party Steele for example, or Rep. Gingery--who after calling him an "entertainer" felt the need afterward to publicly apologize and acknowledge his importance as a conservative leader. I would call that influence on the Republican party.No complaints about the word of the day, you are allowed to use it , having cheerfully admitted to a certain amount of sluthood yourself! But for poor Rush it was a slur too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 You are pointing out the difference between the Republican Establishment and the conservative/ tea partiers...But I am talking about REPUBLICANS period I would call that influence on the Republican party.Carol:"A slur too far!" Nicely turned phrase. There is that PR party girl jumping out. As to the "Republican Party" vs. the Republican voter. Rush directly influences the Republican voter who is a significant minority in the party, They do the hard work, but they are not the money people, the power brokers and the old line blue bloods that hate the conservatives, the tea party and the libertarian wings. The entrenched Rockefeller Republicans do not want the limited government, Constitutional conservatives and libertarians to get control of the party apparatus because it will cut into their piece of the centralized action that Bush helped entrench.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I read that Rush's show is broadcast to the Armed Forces. I would love to know how the women soldiers like it. Would it depend on their political orientation?My 92 year old grandmother has been a fan for a good 20 years. I don't know how she feels about this latest kerfuffle.If you get a chance to ask her I would love to know what she thinks. 92, wow. When she was born women had just barely gotten the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [if you get a chance to ask her I would love to know what she thinks. 92, wow. When she was born women had just barely gotten the vote.Yep and look at the disaster the world has become...oops - never mind - I had a burst of non-sequiteritis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [if you get a chance to ask her I would love to know what she thinks. 92, wow. When she was born women had just barely gotten the vote.Yep and look at the disaster the world has become...oops - never mind - I had a burst of non-sequiteritis...For shame, Sir. And tomorrow is International Women's Day, and I was going to say nice things about everyone here on behalf of ..er, myself because I would never speak on behalf of the other OL women....oh, such nice things I was going to say...but now I see your true nature... oh, oh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 In fact three years ago expat Canadian David Frum warned Republicans in a NY Magazine article that they were "conceding too much power" to Limbaugh. Frum claims he was blacklisted by Fox News because of this article.Carol,What bunk.I haven't read Frum's article, but it is clear to me that he was blacklisted because he's a Canadian. Seriously, though, I tried to look into this. I can't find any reputable journalist (what a concept! ) who writes about this. I did find a ton of Soros-funded leftie sites and their cousins who stated that Frum claimed he was blacklisted. Apparently he's the only one who claimed it--and only in the worse venues possible.I understand from scanning through my Google search and pulling up different sites that Frum's wife runs the Canadian version of The Huffington Post. If he really is blacklisted on Fox, it might be because of things like this. And I bet the story he didn't tell is pretty colorful if you start digging. I seriously doubt it was for criticizing Rush in an article (once again if he is blacklisted at all).Rush has been bashed on Fox a lot. Not like the left bashes, but spoken about with discernible disagreement and displeasure when something specific comes up. Of course, they generally love him there.As a policy, I don't see Fox present commentators who have changed ideology recently. (Sometimes they will present a person who made a full turnabout from liberal to conservative or, more rarely, vice-versa--David Horowitz comes to mind--but I've only seen this with people who did that a while back.)I believe the focus is more on keeping congruency of message for audience identification than political displeasure. My bet is that Frum is not being called more for that reason than an outright blacklist. He already had audience identification as a sporadic non-host guest, but that role is a dime a dozen. If you have to explain a lot of tangential stuff to the audience about why your "guest expert" changed colors, it's not worth it. Frum (or any other guest) is not the story if he gets called to comment on one, but having changed ideology, he would become the story. So better call someone else.Frankly I see it as a business thing, not a political one. I might be wrong.Interestingly, Frum was a speaker at the 50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged celebration that Kat and I attended in Washington DC held by the Atlas Society. Some of the speakers were not as inspiring as they could be, and I'm afraid Frum was among those. I kept falling asleep during his speech, literally, and Kat kept kicking me under the table to wake me up. It wasn't dark for the public, so I guess I was kinda obvious. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 By the way, here is a dire warning from Glenn Beck to the Canadians about George Soros (from here: Beck Issues Stern Warning to Canada: ‘You Are Now Dealing With George Soros’):<object width="400" height="254"><param name="movie" value="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=20144447&property=gbtv" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="scale" value="noscale" /><param name="salign" value="tl" /><embed src="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=400&height=254&content_id=20144447&property=gbtv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" window="transparent" width="400" height="254" scale="noscale" salign ="tl" /> </object>Heh.I can almost hear it. But what's worse is that Glenn is right.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Interestingly, Frum was a speaker at the 50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged celebration that Kat and I attended in Washington DC held by the Atlas Society. Some of the speakers were not as inspiring as they could be, and I'm afraid Frum was among those. I kept falling asleep during his speech, literally, and Kat kept kicking me under the table to wake me up. It wasn't dark for the public, so I guess I was kinda obvious. MichaelYou sure it wasn't your snoring?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 As an outsider I hope I am still allowed to comment and evaluate in my own mind the relative merits and importance of the issues and stratagems.Carol,I just saw this and it registered. (I saw it before, but for some reason the implication didn't sink in.)You don't have to worry ever about being "still allowed to comment and evaluate." You come and go as you please and you are always a delight. Even when you disagree completely with me and wag your finger in my face. If a real problem ever arises, you will be the first to know and there will be no ambiguity. (In all other cases, you will just have to put up with my mouth. )I tend to cut my friends a lot more slack (and that means a hell of a lot) than I do newcomers. It seems the contrary, but that's just the way it appears for some odd reason. This is both on the forum and in my life.I consider OL regulars all to be my friend.In other words, you have far more privilege than newbies in bending the rules and so forth.That's not typically Objectivist, I know.But is it a tribal attitude?Hell yeah.Damn straight. (And in my world, that works perfectly with independent thinking--if ideological peer pressure is constrained, which is what I try to make happen. Thinking is not the same thing as interacting. I believe social relationships not only can be tribal, they better be if they are to work. I even feel protective of the people here.)Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 You sure it wasn't your snoring?Brant,Dayaamm!You were there?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 I listen to Rush a lot, as I sit at the computer attempting to get to work. I heard the programs -- two in particular -- where he went on and on about Fluke, repeatedly calling her a "whore," a "slut," etc.All this sounded way over the top, even for Rush (whom I generally like). Do you want to know what honestly occurred to me at the time? I wondered if Rush was back on the oxycontin. I've had a lot of experience with narcotics, and there is a reason why oxycontin is called "hillbilly heroin." It is essentially prescription heroin, so far as its effects are concerned, and the way Rush was talking struck me as the way a person on heavy narcotics, with his normal self-censoring mechanism shut down, would speak.I'm probably wrong about this, but this was in fact my instinctive reaction.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The left is already caving. Look at this:After Limbaugh, Maybe It’s Finally Time To Ignore The ‘Slut’ SlurBy Megan GibsonMarch 8, 2012 Time - NewsfeedDespite the blah blah blah in this article, the tenor is pretty obvious spin to cover up the message that lefties can't use the word "slut" to attack anymore because too many lefites also use the word.This thing already backfired and if the backfire grows and Obama's super PAC actually returns Maher's cool million to quell the outrage the left itself stirred up, that will be a major PR disaster for Obama's campaign. But so is Maher in the current narrative.They're facing the choice between bad and rotten right now, and retreating while thumping on their chest and crying victory seems to be the best strategy.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 And, after all, what's a little slut talk when you get stuff like the following from a leftie woman?Brought to you by that paragon of women's rights, Randi Rhodes: Ovaries are not a right, they are a privilege, and only liberal women should be allowed to keep them. They should be cut out of conservative women.Here it is from the horse's mouth (which I saw on The Blaze).<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o2-QxkdnR14?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Pretty soon we should be seeing the cry for eugenics once again from the progressives. Maybe spun with some stem cell stuff mixed in or whatever.And the aftermath of that, if it gets taken seriously and some real mean nasty bad guys get a hold of it, will make Auschwitz look like a quiet stroll in the park.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Pretty soon we should be seeing the cry for eugenics once again from the progressives. Maybe spun with some stem cell stuff mixed in or whatever.And the aftermath of that, if it gets taken seriously and some real mean nasty bad guys get a hold of it, will make Auschwitz look like a quiet stroll in the park.MichaelProgressives like Margret Sanger were the founders of eugenics and racial genocide. Imagine that. Genocide originating with the Pinko Stinko Leftie Liberals.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Pretty soon we should be seeing the cry for eugenics once again from the progressives. Maybe spun with some stem cell stuff mixed in or whatever.And the aftermath of that, if it gets taken seriously and some real mean nasty bad guys get a hold of it, will make Auschwitz look like a quiet stroll in the park.MichaelProgressives like Margret Sanger were the founders of eugenics and racial genocide. Imagine that. Genocide originating with the Pinko Stinko Leftie Liberals.I am trying to imagine that. Connect Margret Sanger to founding racial genocide and I will invite you to the Election night party ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I am trying to imagine that. Connect Margret Sanger to founding racial genocide and I will invite you to the Election night party ...Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment," Feb 1919.Published article. Source: Birth Control Review , Library of Congress Microfilm 131:0099B . Birth Control and Racial Betterment By Margaret SangerBefore eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.Eugenists emphasize the mating of healthy couples for the conscious purpose of producing healthy children, the sterilization of the unfit to prevent their populating the world with their kind and they may, perhaps, agree with us that contraception is a necessary measure among the masses of the workers, where wages do not keep pace with the growth of the family and its necessities in the way of food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education and the like.We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. We hold that the world is already over-populated. Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state.We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother. To this end we insist that information in regard to scientific contraceptives be made open to all. We believe that if such information is placed within the reach of all, we will have made it possible to take the first, greatest step toward racial betterment and that this step, assisted in no small measure by the educational propaganda of eugenists and members of similar schools, will be taken.One fundamental fact alone, however, indicates the necessity of Birth Control if eugenics is to accomplish its purpose. Unless contraceptives are used, a child is likely to be born within a year of the last one. Even when the mother is exceptionally robust this frequent child-bearing is a heavy drain upon her system and nine times in ten, it is a drain upon the offspring. The mother's system has not had time to replenish itself with those elements which have been so radically diminished in bringing the child to birth, and of course it has not had time to establish that reserve stock of these same elements which are necessary to the strength and well-being of the next child. The mother's health is more than likely to be wrecked and the later children are almost sure to fall short of that nervous and muscular health which might otherwise have been theirs. Thus we hold that the fruits of the most perfect eugenic marriage are likely to be bad health in the mother and in the later children, if Birth Control is not utilized for the purpose of properly spacing the progeny.This principle asserts itself in all of the economic layers of society but its effects may be modified to a considerable extent by those women who have the means to provide adequate care of themselves during the ante-natal period and adequate care of the child after it is born. With the great masses of the people, however, such care is either exceedingly difficult or impossible. Among the great majority of wage-workers, the frequent arrival of children means not only the wrecking of the mother's health and the physical handicapping of the child, but often the disheartening and demoralization of the father, the stunting of the children through bad living conditions and early toil, and in that generation or the next, the contributing of morons, feeble-minded, insane and various criminal types to the already tremendous social burden constituted by these unfit.While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter. Neither the mating of healthy couples nor the sterilization of certain recognized types of the unfit touches the great problem of unlimited reproduction of those whose housing, clothing, and food are all inadequate to physical and mental health. These measures do not touch those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better.Birth Control, on the other hand, not only opens the way to the eugenist, but it preserves his work. Furthermore, it not only prepares the ground in a natural fashion for the development of a higher standard of motherhood and of family life, but enables the child to be better born, better cared for in infancy and better educated.Birth Control of itself, by freeing the reproductive instinct from its present chains, will make a better race. A family subsisting upon a certain wage will naturally give better care to one or two children upon that wage than it would do four or six or eight or ten, and the two children are much less likely to have to go into child labor factories and sweat-shops than are the eight or ten. The situation is too plain for argument.Concrete examples of the eugenic effects of Birth Control are the most convincing evidence. In Holland, where Birth Control is taught in clinics conducted by nurses specially trained for that purpose, military statistics show that the average stature of men has increased four inches in thirty years. Ninety per cent. of the men were fit for army service, while in the United States, less than 50 per cent. were.The fighting qualities of the French poilu, his endurance, and his fitness have been the amazement of military authorities in the Great War. The present generation of Frenchmen, as everyone knows who remembers the horror with which "anti-race suicidists" greeted the French tendency to Birth Control, is the product largely of Birth Control methods.Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit. It cannot stand against the furious winds of economic pressure which have buffeted into partial or total helplessness a tremendous proportion of the human race. Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment.http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=143449.xml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Pretty soon we should be seeing the cry for eugenics once again from the progressives. Maybe spun with some stem cell stuff mixed in or whatever.And the aftermath of that, if it gets taken seriously and some real mean nasty bad guys get a hold of it, will make Auschwitz look like a quiet stroll in the park.MichaelProgressives like Margret Sanger were the founders of eugenics and racial genocide. Imagine that. Genocide originating with the Pinko Stinko Leftie Liberals.I am trying to imagine that. Connect Margret Sanger to founding racial genocide and I will invite you to the Election night party ...Of course, Margaret Sanger did have some interesting things to say. She was no Hitler, but still ... this is from the website "The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans" -- by Tanya L. Green, posted at Concerned Women of America.Sanger's early writings clearly reflected Malthus' influence. She writes:Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.In another passage, she decries the burden of “human waste” on society:It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].She concluded,The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.Sanger said a “bonus” would be “wise and profitable” and “the salvation of American civilization.” She presented her ideas to Mr. C. Harold Smith (of the New York Evening World) on “the welfare committee” in New York City. She said, “people must be helped to help themselves.” Any plan or program that would make them “dependent upon doles and charities” is “paternalistic” and would not be “of any permanent value.” She included an essay (what she called a “program of public welfare,”) entitled “We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds.”She does sound a little bit like Perigo. Nice to see you at the help desk, Adam! Sanger sounds even a bit Randian here: The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. Edited March 8, 2012 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 There is lots more William:“ I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950Mike Wallace interview with Sanger in 1957, in three (3) parts: Fascinating. Television was so superior to the crap put out today. Additionally, the opening to the first wherein Mike "touts" the cigarette is priceless.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I read that Rush's show is broadcast to the Armed Forces. I would love to know how the women soldiers like it. Would it depend on their political orientation?Carol:We would have to get that from testimonial statements because the active duty military cannot comment on certain issues.Great question though.AdamThanks. I have heard that his listeners are predominantly male (as are the armed forces of course ) but don't know if that's true or not. Most civilian radio listeners are alone in their cars etc. but I was thinking in the service it would be more of a group listening situation; interesting scenario .Interesting story on this today. It is offtopic for this thread so I started a new one in Politics, Nervous in the Service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now