Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (31409)	3/30/2005 4:26:23 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

You need to provide links.

To: American Spirit who wrote (31409)	3/30/2005 4:52:50 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

OK AS, here's the deal. The thread moderator here is very tolerant of posters with widely varying views. Like most of us non-liberals, he welcomes open discussion. But the one rule he has is that you substantiate any of the wilder assertions you make. If you don't, you are gonna ban yourself. So if you persist in posting trash, without links, you're gone. And when you scream that you've been censored, please remember this warning. You did it to yourself. OK?

To: American Spirit who wrote (31409)	3/30/2005 5:17:19 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

Link?

To: American Spirit who wrote (31409)	3/30/2005 5:45:47 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 90947

ST. LOUIS MAN CLAIMS RUSH LIMBAUGH AFFAIR (Disclaimer: this story may be suspect but sounds true) St. Louis xxxxx xxxxxxxx Dec. 8, 2002 A 46 year old music store owner from the St. Louis area, Elliot Sanders, is claiming that while a college student at Southeast Missouri University in 1971, he had an affair with Rush Limbaugh. Sanders claims that he and Limbaugh, the well known talk radio star, had an affair that went on for about 3 months in the fall of 1971. Sanders stated that he met Limbaugh in a class he was taking, but it was only after meeting his sister, who was openly gay at that time, that he found out Rush himself was gay. "Rush was a charming man privately," says Sanders, "I met him in a class I was taking, and got on a first name basis with him. I didn't realize he was gay until his sister came to visit him. She was gay, and like, we hit it off, and she seemed shocked that I didn't know Rush was gay as well. When I found out I was like ... wow!" Sanders says that privately, Limbaugh was very sensitive and caring man, but that he was furiously angry that KFBK, the top 40 radio station he worked while still in high school would not offer him a full time job. "He was furious about that," said Sanders, "And he often told me that he was really going to show them." According to Sanders, Rush's politics at the time were somewhat middle of the road. "Rush said that he though most people are incredibly gullible, and he felt that the key to radio programming was to reach that crowd, and that it would be really, really easy. He thought he thought he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would believe it." When asked when he thought Limbaugh "went straight," Sanders replied, "What are you talking about? I mean, he's been married four times now, do people really not get why he doesn't stay married? I guarantee none of those marriages was ever consummated." Sanders would not divulge any further details, but when asked if he feared retaliation from Limbaugh for his revelations, he stated, "No, Rush wouldn't do that, he's really a sweetie at heart, but some of the people who listen to him might. I think most of them are psychotic. I don't think these people realize he's just pandering to them for ratings, but if they find out, I wouldn't want to be there."

To: American Spirit who wrote (31409)	3/30/2005 9:13:25 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

L.A. Times On Memos Being “Ascribed” – and on Reporting Push Polls as Legitimate Patterico's Pontifications 3/29/2005 Filed under: Dog Trainer Schiavo— Patterico @ 10:16 pm There are at least two problems with today’s L.A. Times article discussing the political hit that the GOP is taking for its actions in the Schiavo case. <snip> The problems with the article don’t end there. We also get the inevitable reference to recent polls supposedly showing that Congress’s action in the Schiavo case was unpopular: <<< Polls show the public overwhelmingly opposed to intervention by Congress and President Bush in the case of Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman whose family has been bitterly split over the decision to remove her feeding tube. >>> This case is a perfect example of why I distrust anything attributed to “polls.” Every poll I have seen on this issue brainwashes the clueless respondents first, and asks questions later. Captain Ed has already taken apart the ABC poll, which said that Terri Schiavo has been on “life support” for 15 years, and adds: “Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible.” Captain Ed concludes that this was, in essence, a “push poll” – and it’s hard to disagree. But the CBS News poll makes the ABC poll look like the height of objectivity. Check out the brainwashing that takes place before the poll gets around to asking the money question: <<< q8 Suppose a patient is in a coma, doctors say brain activity has stopped and the patient is getting food and water through a feeding tube. Should a close family member have the right to tell the doctor to take away the feeding tube and let the person die, or not? q9 Suppose you were in a coma with no brain activity and were being kept alive by a feeding tube. Would you want your doctor to remove the feeding tube and let you die, or not? >>> Already the poll respondent is being set up. Schiavo has never been in a “coma.” She has never had “no brain activity.” That’s okay: a comatose, brain-dead state is about to be equated with her alleged persistent vegetative state, in the next question: <<< q10 Suppose a patient is in a coma or vegetative state, and there is no legal document stating what the patient would like done for them medically. If members of the family do not agree about what to do, who do you think ought to have the final decision – the patient’s spouse, the patient’s parents, or the patient’s adult children if there are any? >>> Gee, all other things being equal, I’d say the spouse, myself. Except that – at least according to the Schindlers – all other things are not equal in this case. Their argument is that Michael Schiavo suffers from numerous emotional and financial conflicts of interest that render his judgment suspect. But that point of view is represented nowhere in the polling questions. The brainwashing continues: <<< q13 Terri Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990. Terri’s husband says his wife would not want to be kept alive under these circumstances and he wants her feeding tube removed. Terri’s parents believe her condition could improve and they want the feeding tube to remain. How closely have you been following news about the case – have you been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all? >>> Again, the Schindlers’ side is completely unrepresented. Several doctors have opined that Terri Schiavo is not in a PVS – most recently a doctor from the Mayo Clinic. No matter. Her PVS is stated as fact, and all doubts are suppressed. In addition, the dichotomy is presented as Terri’s wishes (as represented by the husband) vs. the parents’ belief that she could get better. The fact that Terri’s parents, sister, brother, and several friends have questioned the husband’s view of her wishes is not mentioned. Nor is the fact that numerous doctors agree with the Schindlers that she could improve. Nowhere in the questions is it mentioned that basic neurological tests like an MRI and PET scan were not done. Nowhere is it mentioned that Terri is not terminal – or at least would not be terminal if she weren’t being starved to death by the courts. Basically, the “pull the tube” arguments are all set forth in the poll questions, none of which allude to the main arguments for keeping the tube in. And finally, we get to the Big Question: <<< q14 What do you think should have happened in this case – should the feeding tube have been removed or should it have remained? >>> Is it any wonder that most brainwashed respondents say the tube should have been removed? If the L.A. Times were not engaged in agenda journalism, you’d think that they’d be able to figure out that this polling is all phony. But the paper’s position on Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case is a matter of record, and I doubt there’s much critical analysis going on. I’m sure they just assume that the overwhelming numbers shown in these push polls are 100% accurate – after all, it comports with what everyone in the newsroom thinks. patterico.com.