You continue to entertain. And I accept your apology. Please, no more viagra ads.

And I will concede that Rush's attacks on Chelsea were over the top and highly offensive.

I do not think this type of offensiveness is typical of Rush, however. Although I myself do not tune in, by proximity to those who do, I have the pleasure of hearing Rush briefly on a regular basis. In general he is less grating and offensive to me than Mr. Olberman, for instance.

But I find Ms. Coulter less offensive than Mr. Olberman. And Mr. Savage the most offensive of all.

Yours,
L

All that said, I hope you accept my apologies for disturbing your sensibilities on this fine Sunday. Maybe we can compromise with this description of Rush: He ain’t the sweetest pea on the block, but he sure is the loudest.

Your contrite correspondent,

well said. It is rare indeed these days when one accepts responsibility for the reaction to one's words, whether intended or not. Well said, and well done, sir. Well done indeed.

Also, let us not forget the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed by President John Adams.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Anjin, your powers of recollection are a little better than mine (I had all but forgotten about the ToT)

I apologize for offending you, and thank you for clearing up what puzzled me when I wrote my post. The rough draft of my post was “As such he (she) surely loved Zeldorf’s great line “Rush believes in the American way…” To my mind, that kind of writing on my part would be kind of wimpy on one hand, and offensive on the other.

I guess I should have just said “he or she”, but then what does a slow thinker do with some of the other avatars that populate the net where sex identification is problematic? In your case, the nom de plume, lunacy, suggests the (cough) gentler sex. We would both agree that a center right male would chose an appellation such as “Mad Dog” or “Howling Warrior”. Nothing other than rank timidity on my part, both your nom the plume, and your phrasing suggested a women correspondent.

You will note that when referring to your chosen name of lunacy in this posting I did not select the word avatar, which has a modest warrior quality to it, or the word appellation, which is truly sexless, or the phrase nom de guerre, which speaks of testosterone fueled action, but rather nom de plume. In the Romance Language quoted, plume (feather, e.g. quill) has the female connotation.

The post that you found so offensive is an extension of my first comment (Our Paul | March 7, 2009 | 10:16 am), and is a response to those who feel Rush is a valid spokesman for conservative principles. It quotes David Larison, who blogs for the American Conservative, and who to my mind deserves a daily read. He and others have concluded that Rush is an impediment to conservative thinking.

One has to dig a bit in Joan Walsh’s Salon screed, but she did take offense to what most of us would:

… The first lady was furious about that, and even angrier when Rush Limbaugh took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh. "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" And he held up a picture of Chelsea. (from a Washington Post Article linked in Joan’s piece).

All that said, I hope you accept my apologies for disturbing your sensibilities on this fine Sunday. Maybe we can compromise with this description of Rush: He ain’t the sweetest pea on the block, but he sure is the loudest.

Your contrite correspondent,

OP

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

and just to set the record "straight" this country was designed for Christians and those who would live by precepts of biblical law

Perhaps this is the record, as interpreted by an ignoramus. Let us look at the founding fathers themselves:

John Adams:

Thomas Jefferson:

George Washington:

Benjamin Franklin:

Posted by anjin-san

Anjin... how dare you quote the actual words of the founding fathers! But you missed one, the constitution!!! (Art VI, para 3): "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

But still, my favorite is.

Tom Paine: "My own mind is my church."

Well done lad, well done.

O MY GOD, dude, two delusional misanthropes of the same gender getting married is liberty how?

Ah. I see. It is ok for you to use the force of law to restrict the liberty of people you don't like. But you are in favor of individual liberty, as is Rush. "Liberty", as practiced by the right.

and just to set the record "straight" this country was designed for Christians and those who would live by precepts of biblical law

Perhaps this is the record, as interpreted by an ignoramus. Let us look at the founding fathers themselves:

John Adams:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Thomas Jefferson:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

George Washington:

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

Benjamin Franklin:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

Tom Paine:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

You see, Anjin, unlike you, I don't need to appeal to authority for my viewpoints.

No one mentioned an "appeal". You read, you repeat, you congratulate yourself for being clever. Pretty transparent...

...two delusional misanthropes of the same gender getting married is liberty how?

Umm, how exactly are gay people haters of humankind or delusional?

and just to set the record "straight" this country was designed for Christians and those who would live by precepts of biblical law, not freaks that what to feel good about the nasty or evil crap the do, sorry but it's true.

I see...so Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and, hell, probably even Mormons better get with the program or they should move elsewhere? My my, that raging intolerance is mighty "Christian" of you...by the way, we need only look at the entertainment or political realms to find many, many straight people who are serial adulterers, have numerous divorces and marriages (er, Limbaugh among them), and also do things which you would consider immoral, and yet, it is gay people who are "nasty" and "evil"...

Bit... why don't you just provide a link to Malkin and skip the pretense?

What, she agrees? Well, good. Smart girl, that. Course, I've only been saying this since November, so she's had time to pick up on it.

You see, Anjin, unlike you, I don't need to appeal to authority for my viewpoints.

Liberty? Really? So Rush is now in favor of gay people being able to marry who they wish and women being able to make reproductive choices?

O MY GOD, dude, two delusional misanthropes of the same gender getting married is liberty how? same goes for murdering the children you don't want> why oh why can't I.......
Subterfuge of deviant and murderous choices makes liberty not.

and just to set the record "straight" this country was designed for Christians and those who would live by precepts of biblical law, not freaks that what to feel good about the nasty or evil crap the do, sorry but it's true.

Obama will fail. There is no question in my mind that he will fail. He will fail totally. He will fail miserably. And we will pay the price.

The reason is simple; looking into history, we see that socialism has always failed, invariably , and totally, and usually with rather nasty results.

Bit... why don't you just provide a link to Malkin and skip the pretense?

BUT, not surprisingly, your prejudices and preconceived notions are wrong. And, frankly, I find it a little offensive that you would, a) assume my gender, and b) use such an assumption to suggest sexual hedonism on my part.

I, sir, am not a white male. Or male of any complexion.

Rush is not nearly as offensive as you are.

Yours Truly,
L