Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Democracy Now!"
channel.
-
205
-
179
-
156
-
115
-
102
-
99
-
78
-
68
-
63
-
57
-
54
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
42
-
42
-
38
-
35
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@marvelmusic4566 After reading this thread, I hunted down a few videos of Wolf. I don't pretend they were a representative sample -- in fact, in light of the recent censorship, they are likely to be the ones that survived. In any event, from the few I saw, what struck me were all the times she was careful to state that she was not a medical doctor, that she was not a statistician, and that she did not have the necessary expertise to take a hard look at the data. Then she called upon people who have that expertise to get involved.
She had no trouble saying three little truthful words that would have made all the difference over these past three years: "I don't know." I don't hear that from Klein. I don't hear that from any administration mouthpiece.
On the other hand, I also noticed that Wolf sometimes exaggerated the risk of certain side effects that we now know to be common, but that were systematically denied or minimized by the CDC, FDA, NIH, and other bad actors. I don't like or approve of either one, or regard exaggeration to be an antidote to minimization. It isn't. We WERE lied to, by those with an obligation to tell us the truth and keep us safe. The only corrective to lies is scrupulous truth-telling.
On balance, I find Wolf much more likable and believe she is sincere. I also find it much easier to check her claims and forgive her errors, but only because she is more humble and concedes her limitations. But as I said, I don't like or endorse exaggeration any more than the poisonous gaslighting we have been subjected to. Exaggeration makes it too easy to dismiss the truth that the problems with the vaccines are serious and are not being given the attention they deserve --- and to write people off with pressing concerns as "conspiracy theorists." That that move still works (still!!) is disappointing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Since it seems that no one is going to give Wolf the right of rebuttal, I hunted down a few videos of her myself. I don't pretend they were a representative sample -- in fact, in light of the recent censorship, they are likely to be the ones that survived. In any event, from the few I saw, what struck me were all the times she was very careful to state that she was not a medical doctor, that she was not a statistician, and that she did not have the necessary expertise to take a hard look at the data. Then she called upon people who do have that expertise to get involved.
She had no trouble saying three little truthful words that would have made all the difference over these past three years: "I don't know."
I don't hear that from Klein. I don't hear that from any administration mouthpiece.
On the other hand, I also noticed that Wolf sometimes exaggerated the risk of certain side effects that we now know to be common, but that were systematically denied or minimized by the CDC, FDA, NIH, and other bad actors. I don't like or approve of either one, or regard exaggeration to be an antidote to minimization. It isn't. We WERE lied to, by those with an obligation to tell us the truth. The only corrective to lies is scrupulous truth-telling.
On balance, I find Wolf much more likable and believe she is sincere. I also find it much easier to check her claims and forgive her errors, but only because she is more humble and concedes her limitations. But as I said, I don't like or endorse exaggeration any more than the poisonous gaslighting we have been subjected to. Exaggeration makes it too easy to dismiss the truth that the problems with the vaccines are serious and are not being given the attention they deserve --- and to write people off with pressing concerns as "conspiracy theorists." That that move still works (still!!) is disappointing.
I agree wholeheartedly with your points. Thanks for the Gray Zone recommendation. It sounds great.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I have an idea. You could read the class action complaint and actually see what it is they are asking. If you had any idea of what those years are like, you would know that anyone with any sort of setback that affects their mental health should not be excluded from their previous activities and their friends and their life. Throwing them out of school, and prohibiting them from visiting campus, for no reason apart from their major depressive disorder, is astounding.
If you had cancer, you would not withdraw. You would undergo treatment, and then return to your life -- your job, your friends, your social activities, and you would be advised by your doctors not to isolate yourself.
So, is "old school America" a place that excludes the less-than-perfect? Is that part of its "tradition" of Social Darwinism and eugenics? I wouldn't doubt it. Maybe "old school" is exactly what got us to this place.
It's also remarkable how many future political leaders and prominent jurists spent an inordinate amount of time at Yale getting drunk. That wasn't a "community disruption" somehow. But it certainly was "old school."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The previous post has some good thoughts. I wonder if other people have convinced you to feel self-loathing? You do know that literal heroes, who have saved lives while under fire, have had anxiety issues -- plus PTSD, plus phobias. I'll never forget the anonymous memoir of one man who said that if he had not been decorated for bravery, he too would think he must be a weakling and a coward. But he knew he wasn't. Part of your brain is not sending the correct signals, and other parts know it. That's why you suffer. If you felt no blame for simply following your impulse to avoid what your brain is telling you to avoid, you wouldn't be suffering. It's your knowledge that avoidance is objectively unnecessary that makes you suffer. Well, ignore the negative voices. Don't try to stop them or argue with them. Just note they are there, note that they are not unfamiliar, because you've had them before, and then give yourself permission to go about your day without heaping criticism on yourself. Always do as much as you can, plus try to do just a little more.
Have you ever read any memoirs of people who lived through WWII? I remember a video of Jacqueline de Romilly, in which she said that the clarity of the years of the Resistance to Nazism had made that time easier to bear in some ways than the subsequent decades of peace, relative safety, and much greater confusion. You don't know who has it objectively harder in every respect.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elyg I'm pretty sure you never read Brandenburg v. Ohio, RAV v. St. Paul, the Westboro Baptist Church case, or any harassment case, or any book on propaganda, or free speech, or antisemitism, or anything, probably. Or listened to a single Glenn Greenwald talk on any of these issues, like, ever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LadyBug1967 Well, Princess Diana and her oldest sister both had eating disorders, and Diana contemplated suicide. George W. Bush certainly drank to excess in college on the weekends. Justice Kavanaugh did as well. Then of course there is also the Unabomber, who was a child prodigy in mathematics and a PhD and professor long before he became a psychotic killer and recluse. Maybe they all knew they had to hide their problems, and had support to help them cover it up. Are all of these people younger than you?
I think these women were naive to admit anything to anyone. You don't tell your school about your mental health issues anymore than you would tell your boss. Discrimination is almost a certainty, and in any case, you are now dependent on their mercy. Federal law protects the privacy of medical records for a reason. Of course everyone needs to confide in others, but you have to choose carefully. Bill Gates tried to get Paul Allen to quit Microsoft when Allen was diagnosed with cancer. Allen lived over three decades after his diagnosis -- that is over 30 productive years he might have squandered. People need to take a lesson from this.
Of course there were depressed students in your class, students who thought about killing themselves, and students with odd combinations of learning disabilities and talents. They confided in the art students, musicians, theatre and literature majors, not the sorority sisters, and they certainly never told a professor. They were smarter about life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, maybe you should look up the complaint, which is available online, and read it. It states what the law says about the rights (not "privileges") of those with various handicaps. If federal law says you do not have to accept a "brutal" world, then maybe you don't. If federal law says you have a RIGHT to REASONABLE accommodations, provided you are able to meet the REASONABLE demands of a school (or employer, etc.), then guess what? Looks like you do.
By the way, they are not suing for money. They are suing for injunctive relief, to make Yale obey the law. Cheeky of them, what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelhalbherr3683 And my point is that you can do all those things, and more, and all it takes is one drunk driver, or an environmentally caused cancer, to take you out. Or working your whole life for a corporation rife with crime (think Enron, BP), or be mercilessly harassed or threatened at work while trying desperately to overcome a family tragedy, or be arrested for something you didn't do and played no role in, or be present in the building during a school shooting -- some kids have gone through two of those, now. It seems to me that anyone who is mature must understand just how little we do control, starting with who our family is, whether we have older or younger parents, or brothers and sisters, how long each of those people live, and what they need from us before they die.
As for getting pregnant while still in school, a lot of people would end up having no children had they made "goodness" their priority. Kids fall in love, after a fashion. So? Perhaps it is immature and irresponsible, but it's not all negative. It has a poignant side. For some, it's a reason to get up in the morning and work at two deadening jobs. You don't know anyone like that? I know lots of people like that.
Maybe you're just ungrateful and take random lucky breaks for granted, and instead of working on that (something you can control fairly well -- ironically enough), you prefer to jeer at people you've been taught to label "victims." That's not very smart.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zephyrus001 The "context" (lord how I hate that word --- remember how it came out of the mouth of Amber Heard's "expert witness?") is a narrow one: its utterance during otherwise lawful assemblies in designated First Amendment fora like the quad. That is where Brandenburg v Ohio, RAV v City of St. Paul, etc., etc., apply --- and make no mistake, they do. They are not relevant in the dorms, dining halls, classrooms, amphitheaters, libraries, or pretty much anywhere else, and do not apply in the First Amendment fora, either, the moment one student or group singles out another for targeted harassment.
This is also a great example of First Amendment jurisprudence in another respect: plenty of legitimate Middle Eastern scholars will tell you calls for intifada are calls for resistance, not genocide. It's not up to government to censor them, absent a "compelling interest," a standard the government cannot meet in light of the cases mentioned, where laws against actual cross burning and Nazi symbols were struck down as unconstitutional.
Kind of sad when university presidents can't explain it. Isn't it? :/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zephyrus001 Where is the factual predicate here? There is no question that targeting and confronting a Jewish student individually and using words that can reasonably be construed as advocacy of genocide IS Title VI harassment. Who did that, at Harvard, MIT, or Pennsylvania? I'd expel them myself, and I'm sure they can find a lawyer to bring a civil suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As for the rest, I support free speech in traditional or designated First Amendment fora. These standards of review are a long discussion, and I'm reading Chemerinsky again (his constitutional law textbook) even as we speak. His short book on campus speech, and Nadine Strossen's, are both must-read. If you don't agree with Strossen, she has nevertheless set the mark. Anyone who wants to say anything coherent about free speech, especially at university, has to grapple with her analysis.
Yes, she is that good. She explains exactly why odious speech is better left alone than suppressed, however counterintuitive that may be, with many examples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jj3682 No one said there was a rich guy behind the curtain. I wonder, though -- how do you account for the massive shift in wealth to the very top, which has been going on for 50 years and has been accelerating wildly since the 1990s, especially since financial deregulation? Are all of these people "working harder," "working smarter," or "adding value?"
If giving people money were so sure to ruin them, and was fraught with such risk, please explain why rich people have highly sophisticated estate lawyers, place money in trusts for future generations, place money in off-shore tax havens, and even buy their children's way into schools like Harvard? Who would want to ruin their own child? Seems like they all do. How odd.
The founders of these various tech companies were worth several billion by age 40 if not a decade sooner. That is like accumulating $1,000,000 a year for every year since the birth of Jesus. Please explain how anyone "earns" that -- especially by creating something like social media. (You can't eat it, wear it, or use it to heat your house, but it can be used for propaganda and surveillance simultaneously. Brilliant invention, huh?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smasher.338 Ah, I see. You are in some sort of state of delusion. Because everybody has 800 bases in 70+ countries, has intervened in 251 countries over the last three decades or so (per Congressional Research Service reports) and will do so again, as it must, at the slightest threat to dollar hegemony, because that is how it maintains its standard of living, and has the most extensive global surveillance network known to man, and the most sophisticated and pervasive propaganda.
My family lives in one of those places where the US bombed. These days, it's kind of hard to avoid meeting such people.
You should see their "modest" condo. It would cost millions in New York. I've never seen a nicer one in America, actually, including the ones that cost millions. No, I don't think you know how other people live. And these are ordinary people with ordinary jobs. The father was handicapped for a good while, in fact -- but most of the planet has adopted some socialist principles, fortunately, so that didn't leave them vulnerable.
Small heads up: if you are worried about the influence of China in Africa, it might be wise to rein in your billionaires and their vaccines and their IMF and World Bank ideas, and ask people what they need. No, not just the top 0.1% of greed-driven sycophants in their respective countries, who parrot the slogans you love to hear. That will no longer do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smasher.338 No, considering what they look like, and the stuff they do and did, I don't think so. Do YOU think anyone was jealous of Jeffrey Epstein? How about Ghislaine? How about Harvey Weinstein? Bill Cosby? Bezos? Musk? Leslie Wexner? Don't be abstract. Name some people.
Could there be someone, somewhere who is this primitive? Well, in biology, much is possible, so I guess one should be cautious in making categorical statements. We know no one has ever grown wings or fins, we don't know that no one has been jealous. I say it's rare.
I think this jealousy crap is either projection or pure propaganda. You gave yourself away there . . . "Russia Russia Russia." (Is Putin Hitler, too? LOL)
France is doing a nice job lately. You can't use Paris as your bogey man, now can you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DC-rd6oq Then I have no idea what you mean by saying you"did it alone." If someone, somewhere gave you a job, you didn't invent the job. You didn't bring yourself up from infancy and childhood. You didn't train yourself to do anything you do.
This whole discussion is on the level of some sort of ridiculous sentimentality and magic words, Halmark card "wisdom," and has nothing to do with concrete socioeconomic facts. We are ALL more dependent on society than we ever were, and more vulnerable to what someone half a world away might do, for meeting our most basic necessities. (I don't think that's so great, either, by the way. But I won't delve into magical thinking to hide from it.) If the dollar loses global reserve currency status, then what 9/11, the banking crisis, and the pandemic did not show you, you will be forced to confront.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DC-rd6oq Sorry if you can't handle the truth. I wasn't personalizing this. I'm a lawyer, and I surely did not do that alone. It is my duty, among other things, to know what actually happens in the real world.
As for the larger issues, they are simply facts. We are vulnerable in a way that people who could go to the big city, find a modest but safe room, look for a job, and if they didn't find one, return to the family farm and help bring in the harvest never were. The financialization of the economy, which is relatively new, is what has made us exceptionally vulnerable, and has distorted the principle of reward for productive labor, as opposed to reward for stock manipulation. You missed that, too?
(You were using slogans Limbaugh used to use. You didn't know?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1