Subject: Checked out after hearing on C-SPAN

 Bartcop,

 Heard you and about you site Saturday, June 30, 2001 on C-SPAN.
 You sound like an intelligent person. I know you said you wanted your site
 to reflect your philosophy, or at least something to that effect. I believe you said,
 or at least implied, that you did not want your site to be taken seriously and to be
 up beat, funny, etc. I think you have accomplished what you have set out to do.

 Thanks, and that's a smart move - a compliment starts the conversation better
 than "to the nigger-loving mother-effer," which is how most of my hate mail starts.

 A little about me. I would say I am to the right of center. I believe in personal
 responsibility and accountability. I believe in a capitalist market. I believe in limited
 government rules, laws and regulations. I believe in free speech on and off college campus.
 I believe everyone has the opportunity to be what they want to be, but it does involve hard work,
 education and perseverance. I don't believe anybody can go anywhere with a victicrate mentality.

 I was with you until the last sentence.
 Webster's came up blank for "victicrate."

 Plus, you say "everyone has the opportunity to..."
 That's not correct. The ONLY reason Clarence Thomas got where he is is because
 he was a black man with extremely white ideas. He was a quota fill. He was a set-aside.
 He's exactly what the GOP says is wrong with Affirmative Action.

 Bush Sr, needed a black man to replace Thurgood Marshall, and there are no qualified
 black men who think like Tony Scalia, so Bush dug beneath the bottom of the barrel
 and found an unqualified black man in that idiot Thomas.

 I read a fair portion of your site and found it to be quite interesting.
 I found some information you expose have some creditably problems.

 Being an intelligent person, I am sure you can come up with better words than
 shit, fuck, cocksucker, horseshit, among others to argue your points.

 It's true that each of those words has been published at bartcop.com
 It's the language most Americans use - I didn't invent that language.
 I just want to communicate with the others, so I use the language they use.
 And don't make it sound like those words are in every sentence.
 Those words occasionally pepper the conversation, but it's not a steady diet.

 By the way, do you get HBO?

 I love to argue my points also, but using personal attacks on character such as, foul-mouthed,
 pornographer, scumbag and vulgar Pigboy only reduce, if not destroy my credibility.

 You seem to have no trouble using them to make your point here...
 Is that not what you're accusing me of?

 Also, keep in mind this page started as a rebuttal to Rush, the vulgar Pigboy.
 If you read a few issues, you'll find examples in almost every issue of what a foul-mouthed
 bastard Rush Limbaugh is on a daily basis. Sometimes he says Hillary murdered Vince Foster.
 Sometimes he calls Chelsea, "the White House dog."

 During this last campaign, when Gore's daughters filled in for Tipper at some stops,
 Rush wondered of Gore would be french-kissing them at the end of each speech.

 Keep in mind, this was NOT done as humor, the Gore incest thing.
 He slowed his rhetoric, making ev-er-y syl-la-ble count, when he told his audience how deeply
 and profoundly sick he was at the very thought of Gore committing incest with his daughters.
 He went waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of his way to be sure his sheep knew this was NOT a joke.

 He was deeply and profoundly upset at Gore for this "incest" that he, Rush, had fabricated.

 That kind of talk, spoken to millions of believe-every-word gullibles, is much worse than
 any curse word that's ever been written on the pages of bartcop.com.

 I don't claim to have talent on loan from God.
 I don't claim I'm right 98.5 percent of the time, "documented," of course.
 (My last boss actually believes that Rush is right 98.5 percent of the time.
  He looked at me one day and said, "But Bart, it's been documented."
  Those are the people that I fear - the ones who don't know Rush makes that shit up.
  Oh, no, I used a bad word - I guess that negates this entire page, right?)

 No, we do the comedy thing here, and if a valid point is made in the process - fine.

 In the article entitled 'The Cock Crows' you are making points about Rush's loyalty and vulgarity
 (in this latter subject your creditably is severely lacking). I listen to Rush a great deal and have for
 more than 10 years. I have to work for a living, so I don't get to listen 100% of  the time, wish I could.
 I don't recall hearing the jokes you refer to in this piece. I listened to the audio you had available.
 It does sound like Rush, but to me it sounds out of character. I would like to hear or see a transcript
 of the entire context of these pieces. I have a feeling you are letting us hear only that part of the piece
 you want us to hear.

 That ordinarily would be a valid point, your "out of context" charge, but in this case you imply
 that there are some dirty tampon jokes, and some choke-on-a-penis jokes that God would like.
 I submit that's not the case.

 The whole point of that piece (which you seem to have avoided) is that Rush says these awfully
 vulgar things using God's talent.  That doesn't offend you?  What kind of God do you pray to
 who wants to be included in Rush's dirty tampon jokes and gagging from oral sex jokes?
 

 Call me suspicious.
 Can you tell me on which show these statements (jokes) were expressed?

 The date?   No, I don't have the date - it was in late 1999, but why does that matter?
 If he said it on a Tuesday, that's OK- but a Friday would be bad?

 Besides, the reason I can't give you the date is because Rush is smart enough to avoid having
 his shows catalogued and archived, because this way his words can't be used against him unless
 some enterprising person records the shows, then feeds that audio into his computer using
 Cool Edit 2000 ($70) to then post them on the Internet - only to have Rush's followers say,
 "I'm very suspicious about that audio clip you played of Rush."

 (Tell me, have you ever been suspicious of a Clinton clip Rush played?)

 Hiding this way, he (and you) can say, "Rush never said that."
 That's a very cowardly way to hide the hatred he spews, but you'll notice every word I say
 is here forever, waiting to be challenged and I'm still waiting to be called on something I've said.

 You have given us part of the audio, can you give us the rest?

 No, I only saved the worst parts, but what would "the rest" prove?
 Do you think I have the talent (or budget) to manipulate his speech to get it to flow
 that smoothly so I could unfairly attack him with words he never used?
 Maybe that's a compliment.
 If so, thanks.

 It kills me that you KNOW he said it, but instead of saying,
 "Yes, I admit it's disgusting when a man I like drags God's dignity thru dirty tampons,"
 you make excuses for him, asking for the date and the surrounding audio.

 You heard Rush say those words, but you reject what your own ears have told you.
 Tell me, do your eyes lie to you, too?

 You have a problem with my language because I have a (D) after my name.
 You give Rush a pass, with talent on loan from God, because he has an (R) after his name.
 You're not upset about language.
 You're upset with my party affiliation.

 You made many references to Clinton's occupation of our White House.

 I believe that sentence includes a typo on your part.
 I've never used the phrase "Clinton occupation."
 Unlike your guy, my guy won two elections, fair and square.
 Clinton's daddy didn't run the CIA, and Clinton's brother didn't have his girl call a quick victory
 before the votes were counted to steal the deciding state in a close election.

 You implied that the RIGHT side of the political spectrum was out to get this guy at any cost.
 I am sure you believe that Clinton was an angel and did no wrong, although you do admit he has flaws.
 That he did not give the RIGHT any ammunition to use against him. You and many of your mind set feel
 that this was all about sex and personal hits. You and others convinced many that this was what it was all about.
 You were very successful, I must admit. I believe his impeachment had nothing to do with sex and/or other
 personal actions. It had everything to do with character, lying under oath and to the American people.

 You're free to believe that roses are blue and violets are red if you want.
 This is America.
 The American voter saw things differently than the GOP wanted them to.
 The American voter does not believe your version of recent history.
 Your side has lost seats in every election since 1994.
 Your side has lost the last three presidential popular votes.
 America thinks roses are red.

 Clinton appealed to many victicrates that felt guilt in their own actions.

 There's that "victicrates" word again.
 Could you forward that word and its meaning to Webster's dictionary so the rest of us can learn?

 Their support and forgiveness for his actions helped them justify their own guilt and actions.

 Some of that is true, but I think you have it backwards:

 Most men cheat on their wives, yet most of them hated Clinton for it.
 Most wives have been cheated on, but most of them forgave Clinton.

 Something tells me you have no problem with selling futuristic weapons to terrorist nations,
 then lying about it, then stonewalling, then committing perjury, then finally having to pardon
 the whole gang to avoid jail for these very serious crimes, but when Clinton tried to hide a
 little oral sex, the "Rule of Law" became very important to you, right?

 Just like with the language thing...
 You say I use inappropriate language, but you give Rush a pass.
 The "flag is falling" for oral sex, but Reagan/Bush are heroes for treason and arming terrorist nations?

 That calls for a drink.

 I could go on with many more subjects, but this is probably longer than you want to read.
 I would like to correspond with you on other subjects if you would care.

 Dick Mathews
 Moreno Valley, CA
 

 Dick, I think you're wrong on most points, but you were a gentlemen.
 If you thought I was too strident with my remarks, feel good that I held back.

 One last thing - as  bartcop.com  gets more widely known, there is a natural tendency
 for me to curb some of the more outlandish language, so it should only get better for you.
 When we fiirst started, there were a couple of dozen people on the subscription list.
 Gradually, we are being read by more people, and that brings on more responsibility.

 Thanks for writing, I'd enjoy a rematch.

 bc