>>No, but you can apparently get an Internet connection.
>
>Yeah, and they think they invented it as well. <g>

Who is they?

>>>Not all southern history is racist you know.. A lot of very fine folks come from that part of the country and I dare say that what bothers me is along the lines of what Tom said - folks judging others by the very means they do not want to be judged by themselves. That is, skin color.
>>
>>As a resident of the South since 1979, including stays in North Carolina, Florida, and Missouri, I am quite aware that not all southern history is racist, just as I know most residents of Utah aren't married to 20 wives. The average is somewhere around 3 or 4.
>
>Gratuitous bigoted swipe alert!
^
I think you misspelled bygamy.

>Shame on you Chris. I'm not LDS and that was a cheap shot and shows you know little or nothing about what today's LDS church teachings are on the issue of plural marriage. Is that the best you can do to communicate? Tsk tsk..

I have no idea what LDS is. Maybe in Utah it is common knowledge.

>>But the Confederate flag is a battle flag from a war thats main cause was slavery. You can argue that the right to secede from the Union was the ultimate cause, but that is as naive as saying WWI was fought over an assasination.
>
>I guess you're calling all southerners who hold/held that position liars then, right? Man, you need a course in civility. Is this another example of liberal tolerance? <g> Or just a case of keyboard in mouth? <g>

How am I calling anyone a liar? Be very careful with what you accuse me of.

>Sure there were economic issues and we all agree that slavery should have ended but I'd remind you that we almost didn't have a nation over this issue as well and "The Great Compromise" was the result.
>
>The Civil War settled the cecession issue for sure but this flag issue IMO only serves to illustrate just how out of touch with reality the so-called victims are. Symbols over substance.

No, it shows how out of touch you are with the South. That figures, being that you are making your comments from half way across the country, making comments about a regional issue you know nothing about.

>>Just the victims you don't agree with. When you were a 'victim' of Bill Clinton and the 'liberal left', I heard plenty of your whining.
>
>That's the system remember? <g> We all have the right of redress - and in your case perhaps a pink lame`. <g>

I have no idea what that means.

>He has an independent auditor just like everyone else. Are you not thinking or just asking dumb questions today? <g> His advertising revenues are directly associated with his Arbitron ratings and if you choose to hide your head in the proverbial sand I'm not going to stop you. <g> At some point you're going to have to accept the facts you would think.
>
>What does O'Reilly have anything to do with anything? I take it that you think this is a logical approach - that since you like Mr. O'Reilly and he doesn't like Rush that this is 'proof' of anything? <g> The simple facts are that Rush Limbaugh has some 20+ millions of listeners.

Just a conservative voice who sees Rush for what he is: an entertainer who play loose with the facts:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html

>Lessee.. Here's an old rating I easily found using Google.com: http://www.talkers.com/talkaud.html#TOP%2010%20TALK%20RADIO%20AUDIENCES%20BY%20SIZE

Did you actually check this out? Rush has 14.25 million. You wrote that he had 20 million plus. Maybe this explains why you like Rush so much: never let the facts get in the way of a good story. What is it with you Doug? Can you please post some facts that I won't have to double-check?

>Here's another:http://radio.about.com/tvradio/radio/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000927/ca%5Flimbaug.html

Just went there. Yahoo says the page does not exist. Don't you try these things out before you post?

>Face reality Chris.. I know right now, with Bush as President it must be hard but you'll be ok. <g> Just think.. Maybe in two years I'll be singing the blues with a Democratic House. <g> Right now it's my time to gloat - you've had eight years and what did it get you guys? Lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the White House. Hee hee hee...

Actually, I like W. so far, and much prefer him to Clinton or Gore. Pay attention.

>That's because he chose to stop doing the TV show. Not forced out mind you but voluntarily stopped. And not for ratings either. Even with the goofy hours he often had better ratings than the others. He explained that it wasn't worth doing and fighting the battle as he ultimately didn't have the same kind of control he had in radio. Guess you must have missed that part. <g>

Yeah, right. He got out before he was cancelled.

>Right and golly gee.. After a recount in Broward COunty guess who came up with six more votes? Why, W! <g>

Cool, so now you favor a recount?

>Do we also need to revist the notion that we're a Republic and the law directs us to the Electoral College approach or do I need to go through the whole history lesson again about why we have an Electoral College.

Will your history lesson include a few facts for a change?

>You just don't like the fact that GW won according to the rules is all.

I am quite happy what W. won.

>Get over it - he's President, not Al and that's tough tiddly winks.
>
>Nyah nyah! *gd&rvvf*
>
>>
>>>Just wanted to make sure you knew.... <g>