Larry,
How do you state something like 'One thing causing contention is the difficulty many critics have discussing political issues objectively and not taking critical analysis of their favorite causes as a personal attack.'
I'm not sure we even want to say that. The critics, of course, will strongly disagree with the description of Rush's analysis as "objective." More importantly, you are insulting the critics. The critics certainly don't think
they are reacting to a personal attack; they think they are refuting Rush using cold logic and obvious truths. You and I might or might not disagree with that, but the interests of polite discourse (even if it's discourse
about impolite discourse) requires that we refrain from psychologizing about the shortcomings of critics.
The comment you make would be better placed in an article about the psychology and rhetoric of political discourse--which, I'm just guessing, is a topic on which none of us is actually expert enough to write anything worth reading. --Larry Sanger
I guess I should have added something about the rebuttal not being based on logic and using one or more unproven cliches.
Personally, I don't think that would do the trick either. Please see
neutral point of view. --
LMS
Someone put this link on the first page...it deserves to be on the talk page.
Anti-conservitive web sites:
Actually, I'd say anti-Rush (not anti-conservative) websites would be perfectly appropriate for Rush Limbaugh. Anti-conservative websites would be appropriate for political conservatism, just as anti-liberal websites would be appropriate for political liberalism.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)