Saturday, February 26, 2005

...and then there were three

I must add this right-wing blog to the two I mentioned the other day. Allow me to introduce you to the incredibly named "Michael The Archangel".
He took the time to read one of my posts on Bleeding Heart Liberals, and graciously put forward a constructive and respectful argument in reply.
Having read several of his posts and seen how his views are often copy/pasted on other sites, I could possibly describe him as Blogland's answer to Rush Limbaugh. If you want to understand the 51% of Americans I was alluding to, I suggest you bookmark this blog.


Buffalo said...

The likes of Limbaugh, Falwell and Dr. Laura are not representative of how America thinks. They have a large and vocal audience, true. As does Michael Moore.

The majority, the silent majority as former President Nixon put it, fall in the middle.

Loud mouths, negative behavior, etc, et al, garner attention. The quiet, the thinkers, those who behave well do not receive any attention. They aren't news worthy.

JL Pagano said...

Rush Limbaugh is perceived, over here at least, as a shock jock for the religious right. The bulk of what he says would not be available for scrutiny so he would not garner that much attention this side of the pond.

Given this perception, I stand by my analogy. I did not mean it in a bad way by any means. I was simply amazed at how many other blogs copy/pasted his posts directly, which was pretty amazing in itself.

For the record, though I would agree with him on many things, I cannot stand Michael Moore.

enzo said...

The penalty for indifference is to be ruled by evil men.


JL Pagano said...

I thought it was fifteen yards and loss of down? Or is that interference??? [boom-boom]