Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on June 12, 2010, 01:03:05 AM
-
Last week Rush Limbaugh got married for the 4th time, IIRC.
From what I read, it was a big bash. What really was odd, though, was that he paid Elton John one million to play at the party. Stranger yet, Elton John went for it.
Talk about odd couples.
-
Apparently James Carville was there. Another odd appearance.
-
Apparently James Carville was there. Another odd appearance.
Not that suprising. Often the fame and noteriety is a bigger bond than the actual political leanings. And Carville is maried to Mary Matalin the big Conservative speech writer/strategist etc.
There's a certain attitude that's akin to them all being sports players but just on different teams etc.
-
I wonder if Rahm's invitation got lost in the mail :laugh:
-
Dude, it didn't work the last three times. Why do it again? ;/
-
Dude, it didn't work the last three times. Why do it again?
I've never understood that, either. I sometimes think that some people don't want to have serial affairs, so they have serial marriages instead.
-
Dude, it didn't work the last three times. Why do it again? ;/
Because people are not statistics.
My father's first two marriages didn't work. The third one did.
-
Heh heh. Last night I asked Lynn where she thought Rush went on his honeymoon. She said he's probably standing in line at divorce court. heh heh heh. :P
-
Dude, it didn't work the last three times. Why do it again?
"The triumph of optimism over experience" :lol:
-
I think the only reason his last marriage broke up was his drug addiction, with that being gone, this may last.
-
I think the only reason his last marriage broke up was his drug addiction, with that being gone, this may last.
I listen to Rush regularly. I know he went to rehab, but I never heard him say he actually kicked the habit. Does anybody know for sure?
-
I listen to Rush regularly. I know he went to rehab, but I never heard him say he actually kicked the habit. Does anybody know for sure?
I remember him saying words to the effect that he wasn't taking the drugs any longer. Maybe he thought it would be disingenuous to say that he's "quit," much as it's not right for an alcoholic to say he's no longer an alcoholic because he doesn't drink. Once an addict always an addict, I guess.
-
Addiction is highly overrated.
-
Speaking from personal experience, I think I might be highly resistant to getting addicted. I tried cigarettes when I was a kid, then just didn't feel like it any more. Smoked cigars in my early 20s, then just stopped because I wanted to run faster. Used to drink probably a liter of Coke a day plus coffee, then just stopped because I read in a sniper book that caffeine degrades shooting abilities. Haven't had a caffeinated drink in about 2 months. And most recently, I will admit, I would go through a half gallon of vodka a week by myself for emotional reasons. Last time I got drunk was probably 3 weeks ago. I just didn't feel like it any more. I dunno, it's just like substances that I know other people get addicted to, I can try and use, and then just stop when I want with no feelings of needing to go back.
I will say that I've never gone up against super addictive stuff like hard drugs or prescription meds. And with someone like Rush who I imagine has more stress in his life than I can image, I can see an addiction to that stuff being hard to get over. I wish him well with ths marriage. I know he's been losing a lot of weight, IIRC he gave up cigars as well. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he really is over his addiction to meds. He's been out there in the thick of politics for decades. If anyone deserve a bit of quiet, personal happiness, it's him.
-
Speaking from personal experience, I think I might be highly resistant to getting addicted. I tried cigarettes when I was a kid, then just didn't feel like it any more. Smoked cigars in my early 20s, then just stopped because I wanted to run faster. Used to drink probably a liter of Coke a day plus coffee, then just stopped because I read in a sniper book that caffeine degrades shooting abilities. Haven't had a caffeinated drink in about 2 months. And most recently, I will admit, I would go through a half gallon of vodka a week by myself for emotional reasons. Last time I got drunk was probably 3 weeks ago. I just didn't feel like it any more. I dunno, it's just like substances that I know other people get addicted to, I can try and use, and then just stop when I want with no feelings of needing to go back.
I can relate.
Granted, I've never tried illegal narcotics, meth, crack etc.. But I've had more than my share of Rx ones for various mishaps, and I can see the appeal. A cocktail of Vallium and Oxycodone for a particularly nasty back injury was like being wrapped in uh.. love and a clean blanket just out of the dryer. =D
However, stopping, or even bothering to finish the Rx was not a problem.
I love my alcohol too. But I'll go weeks or a month without a drink, only really ever thinking to socialy, out to eat etc.
-
RG:
I have family who consume much less than you did and I consider them drunks...becasue they can't quit despite it causing them problems.
You were consuming a LOT of alcohol. Assuming 80 proof (40% alc) and 1/2 gal / 64 oz, that translates to:
43 12 oz bottles of beer (5% alc) (512 oz total)
8.5 750 ml bottles of wine (12% alc) (213 oz / 6400 ml total)
Sure, some drunks consume more, but that amount of alcohol and brain pickling can be as powerful an addictive agent as others commonly thought to be harder. I suspect, when it comes to addiction, it is very individualized.
That is a round 'bout way of saying that your drug of choice is legal and common, but don't discount your putting a stop to it.
-
Did his being an addict stop him calling for harsher penalties for those evil, evil potheads? Serious question, been a long time since I've had a chance to listen to him regularly.
-
Did his being an addict stop him calling for harsher penalties for those evil, evil potheads? Serious question, been a long time since I've had a chance to listen to him regularly.
Did he ever do that? Serious question, I don't recall that he did.
-
Did he ever do that? Serious question, I don't recall that he did.
Yes, I think he did. I remember thinking what a hypocrit he is/was after I heard about his own drug addiction.
-
Yes, I think he did. I remember thinking what a hypocrit he is/was after I heard about his own drug addiction.
I take a different view on that.
I don't think having shortcomings on your own removes your ability to say something is wrong. Ex: Do I think that young women and teens are overly sexualized and that it has a negative effect on the social fabric of the nation? Yes. When I see an attractive college girl at school who is wearing something that could be considered slutty, do I feel outraged? Nope. I think it's awesome.
Or my own situation. Do I think it's a good idea for people to get drunk all the time? No. But that didn't stop me from doing it.
I just don't think one has to be perfect before saying other things are wrong. And I don't recall Rush ever saying his actions were right. One does not have to be right to say someone else is wrong. It's ok IMO to say "we're both wrong". Let's face it. We've all done wrong things before. We've all broken the law in some way before. That doesn't mean we can't say that those actions, actions we may have even committed ourselves, are good and right. Having flaws doesn't mean you can't see and state that other people also have flaws.
Whether you agree with drug laws or not isn't the issue. You can disagree with Rush all you want. That's ok. But to say "I don't like him because he said something was wrong that he did himself" is a pretty strange attitude to have considering that every one of us has done something we have said is wrong, and will no doubt do so again many times. Perfection is not a prerequisite for having a moral opinion.
-
Well said, Ragnar. I completely agree.
-
Ragnar Danneskjold, what you've just described is part of the reason for the double standard when it comes to liberals and conservatives.
Many of us are frequently outraged when a conservative gets pilloried for having an affair or doing something else wrong that, if it were done by a liberal, wouldn't even get two column inches in the NYT.
The supposed newsworthiness of the story is that a conservative who supposedly stands for some ideals has betrayed those ideals. Since the liberal doesn't stand for those ideals, the affair or whatever isn't news.
What the critics fail to realize is that striving to achieve an ideal and failing is different from not striving to achieve an ideal at all. A conservative can talk about the sanctity of marriage, then have an affair and his career is ended. Bill Clinton can have a zillion affairs and everyone just says, "that's Bill."
-
Let he who is without a bit of hypocracy throw the first stone.
-
I take a different view on that.
I don't think having shortcomings on your own removes your ability to say something is wrong. Ex: Do I think that young women and teens are overly sexualized and that it has a negative effect on the social fabric of the nation? Yes. When I see an attractive college girl at school who is wearing something that could be considered slutty, do I feel outraged? Nope. I think it's awesome.
Or my own situation. Do I think it's a good idea for people to get drunk all the time? No. But that didn't stop me from doing it.
I just don't think one has to be perfect before saying other things are wrong. And I don't recall Rush ever saying his actions were right. One does not have to be right to say someone else is wrong. It's ok IMO to say "we're both wrong". Let's face it. We've all done wrong things before. We've all broken the law in some way before. That doesn't mean we can't say that those actions, actions we may have even committed ourselves, are good and right. Having flaws doesn't mean you can't see and state that other people also have flaws.
Whether you agree with drug laws or not isn't the issue. You can disagree with Rush all you want. That's ok. But to say "I don't like him because he said something was wrong that he did himself" is a pretty strange attitude to have considering that every one of us has done something we have said is wrong, and will no doubt do so again many times. Perfection is not a prerequisite for having a moral opinion.
Wow. Well said. It's always surprising, when people actually know what hypocrisy isn't.
I don't think Rush has ever said that what he did should be legal, or that what he did was better than smoking pot. Nor have I heard him complain about having to repay the state for their (pretty much fruitless) criminal investigation, or submit to treatment or drug testing, or give up his right to own guns for a year and a half. The one thing he did complain about was the seizure of his medial records, which the court and the ACLU agreed was not kosher.
The larger point is this: whatever one might think about Limbaugh's drug use, or his views on drug laws, the pill addiction issue can only really be a nit-pick on an otherwise impressive record of service to his country and to the cause of limited government.
-
There's a lot more to whether a man becomes an addict than the physical qualities of the addictive substance in question. Some people do hve a greater predilection to ruining their lives through addicted behavior than others.
I was sadly forced to discover this on the fate of some of my friends and loved ones.
-
impressive record of service to his country
Being a successful entertainer is serving the country?
-
Being a successful entertainer is serving the country?
It can be. The value of service is in the eye of the beholder. Turning the monopoly of the liberal media and creating a true alternative to their slanted bias could indeed be seen as a service. Playing the role of a foil to liberal politicians and giving millions of Americans a chance to see things in a different light could also be seen as a service. One has to only listen to the callers on his show to see that the information he puts out, entertaining as it is, has indeed been a positive influence on the lives of many. I would call that a service.
You don't have to agree with what he says about everything. But before Rush, there was really no one out there at all who had the ability and reach to show as many people as him a totally different side of politics. Before Rush talk radio was essentially nothing. You had the big newspapers and their slant, the nightly news shows and their slant, and that's about it. Rush opened up politics to millions who until then has basically the New York Times as their source for any political information. Rush started the "Alternative Media". And as one who has become interested in politics soley because of my exposure to the Alternative Media, I do indeed say Rush has done a great service. I don't doubt I would be another apathetic college kid with an Obama sticker on my car if not for hearing Rush when I was a young teen.
Take it a step further and ask yourself why Freedom of the Press is such an important Right. Could it be because those who provide crucial information to the masses are very valuable to freedom and an open political process? Some people (used to) view journalism as a service to the country. True journalists who sought to expose government, to antagonize government, to question anything that came out of the mouth of a government functionary. Shedding a light on the inner workings of a bureaucracy was a high calling for a journalist. Why should calling that service be restricted to Walter Cronkite or the journalists of half a century ago? Entertaining or not, Rush exposes things that would not otherwise be exposed. He tells truths that would otherwise be kept dark. One simply needs to see how much he is attacked and ridiculed by the Left to know that he is striking them in their heart. The best cure for a lie is the truth.
Rush makes a lot of money by running his mouth on the radio and selling advertising space. Ok. So what? Does that automatically disqualify the fact that what he says is valuable to a lot of people. Does making money and telling a few jokes mean what you're doing can't be a service?
-
Being a successful entertainer is serving the country?
It was after listening to him I started getting more involved in the political process and started taking my responsibilities more seriously.
I take a different view on that.
I don't think having shortcomings on your own removes your ability to say something is wrong. Ex: Do I think that young women and teens are overly sexualized and that it has a negative effect on the social fabric of the nation? Yes. When I see an attractive college girl at school who is wearing something that could be considered slutty, do I feel outraged? Nope. I think it's awesome.
Or my own situation. Do I think it's a good idea for people to get drunk all the time? No. But that didn't stop me from doing it.
I just don't think one has to be perfect before saying other things are wrong. And I don't recall Rush ever saying his actions were right. One does not have to be right to say someone else is wrong. It's ok IMO to say "we're both wrong". Let's face it. We've all done wrong things before. We've all broken the law in some way before. That doesn't mean we can't say that those actions, actions we may have even committed ourselves, are good and right. Having flaws doesn't mean you can't see and state that other people also have flaws.
Whether you agree with drug laws or not isn't the issue. You can disagree with Rush all you want. That's ok. But to say "I don't like him because he said something was wrong that he did himself" is a pretty strange attitude to have considering that every one of us has done something we have said is wrong, and will no doubt do so again many times. Perfection is not a prerequisite for having a moral opinion.
Can't disagree with that much at all.
-
Being a successful entertainer is serving the country?
Everyone knows he's much more than that. If you want proof, just listen to the leftists trying desperately to make Limbaugh go away by repeating the phrase "he's just an entertainer." Or listen to the other response; "He's hateful/a bigot/divisive."
I think one example of Limbaugh's achievements should be enough. On a forum where everyone loves to bash the "lamestream media," it should be sufficient to point out that Limbaugh has done more than anyone else to expose the establishment press. Even the left (were they actually interested in free thought), would have to admire Rush for making skepticism cool.
Is he right about everything? No. But having served my country in uniform for a few years, I can state authoritatively that Rush has done far more for the country than some of us veterans have.
-
Being a successful entertainer is serving the country?
For people like Ronald Reagan (who was medically unfit for miltary service in WWII), it was....
-
Who coined the phrase "mainstream media"? Rush is the first major guy I remember saying it, but I'm sure it is older than that.
I just remember first listening to him when I was in college in the early 90's and all the ozone layer hysteria was going on. He just made a lot of sense.
-
RUSH IS RIGHT!!!! :cool:
-
So, using your (according to fisty) considerable influence to try to destroy the lives of people who are doing the same thing you are is not an example of hypocrisy now? Interesting...
I'm not downplaying his accomplishments, I just see no reason to pretend the man is some sort of saint because I happen to agree with him about a lot of things.
-
Whose lives did he try to destroy? Are you trying to say that commentary on his show equates to trying to use his influence to destroy the lives of certain people? That is stretching it so far it is ridiculous.
Also, I don't see the man as a saint or anything. He is just a fairly conservative guy who makes pretty good sense and has remained remarkably consistent over the years. Whether you like him or not, he has had a huge influence on politics in the media over the years.
-
His accomplishments are remarkable, which is enough for me to admire the man. Before him talk radio was nothing.
It's easy to take his and other hosts' skills for granted until you hear an average host.
-
If you don't see the hypocrisy in a drug addict trying to use his influence to get far harsher sentences for other drug addicts, well.... I'm not sure what I can do to convince you. I notice that when a liberal calls for more gun control then carries a gun themselves we have no problem calling them on that hypocrisy...
-
Bad analogy. Carrying a gun isn't inherently bad for you or wrong, and it's not something people struggle to get over. There are no "recovering gun owners".
-
There's plenty of people who use recreational drugs who maintain careers/jobs/etc, or who could have done so if they weren't arrested. Not every drug user is an addict, and not every addict is a junky.
-
Bad analogy. Carrying a gun isn't inherently bad for you or wrong, and it's not something people struggle to get over. There are no "recovering gun owners".
1) There are many that would argue that carrying a gun is bad for you and wrong.
2) It is not government's place to tell you what is bad for you.
I would argue that Rush's hypocrisy isn't in his being an addict, but being someone who accuses leftists of being statists, while he himself pushes the war on drugs and the continued occupation of nations that are no longer a military threat to us.
Also, Rush has been very critical of Homosexuals, yet hires a very open homosexual to entertain at his wedding?
-
Also, Rush has been very critical of Homosexuals, yet hires a very open homosexual to entertain at his wedding?
I've listened to Rush for a lot of years (almost every day when I was driving truck) and I don't recall him ever being "very critical of Homosexuals". It sounds like something the heard is always saying. =|
-
1) There are many that would argue that carrying a gun is bad for you and wrong.
2) It is not government's place to tell you what is bad for you.
I would argue that Rush's hypocrisy isn't in his being an addict, but being someone who accuses leftists of being statists, while he himself pushes the war on drugs and the continued occupation of nations that are no longer a military threat to us.
Also, Rush has been very critical of Homosexuals, yet hires a very open homosexual to entertain at his wedding?
Granted, I don't listen to him much these days, but I haven't heard Rush go on about the drug war in years. Anyone have a pointer to a program of him doing so?
The homosexual he hired (Elton John) has the exact same position on gay marriage that Rush does.
Rush's position on troops in Germany, the UK, Italy, Japan,and S Korea are not particularly controversial. ;)
-
Both Elton John and Rush Limbaugh agree (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=106910) on the issue of gay marriage, FWIW.
-
If you don't see the hypocrisy in a drug addict trying to use his influence to get far harsher sentences for other drug addicts, well.... I'm not sure what I can do to convince you. I notice that when a liberal calls for more gun control then carries a gun themselves we have no problem calling them on that hypocrisy...
That's because you haven't shown any examples of Limbaugh calling for far harsher sentences for any drug addicts at all, much less for those who abuse pain pills.
That's because the current drug laws have almost nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh did not start the war on drugs, nor would it be any nearer to an end if he were still a Philadelphia disk jockey.
That's because Rush went through the legal process, and kicked the habit; rather than suddenly beginning a campaign to legalize prescription drugs, or protesting that what he had done was just fine.
I just see no reason to pretend the man is some sort of saint because I happen to agree with him about a lot of things.
How about the fact that he's done more for those things you agree with, than you or I ever have?
-
I would argue that Rush's hypocrisy isn't in his being an addict, but being someone who accuses leftists of being statists, while he himself pushes the war on drugs and the continued occupation of nations that are no longer a military threat to us.
Also, Rush has been very critical of Homosexuals, yet hires a very open homosexual to entertain at his wedding?
So, drugs, occupation and Elton John. In reverse order:
Rush never said that homos shouldn't play the piano. I don't quit listening to musicians, just because their personal lives or political views are a mess. Do you?
Differing with your point of view about national security does not make a man a statist.
As for drugs, ya know, I've pretty much come to agree with drug legalization point of view. But it still doesn't make any sense to call a man a statist for not being a perfect libertarian. At least not when he's done more to combat statism than any drug legalizer I know of.
-
At least not when he's done more to combat statism than any drug legalizer I know of.
Milton Friedman.
-
Milton Friedman.
Ooooo, MB may have a point on that one. But it doesn't discount the fact that Rush has still done more to combat statism than all of us in this thread combined.
-
Ooooo, MB may have a point on that one. But it doesn't discount the fact that Rush has still done more to combat statism than all of us in this thread combined.
Which means what?
Practically any politician who's even remotely right-wing has done more to combat statism than me. This doesn't mean they're immune to criticism.
It's like saying I shouldn't call Avatar a bad movie because I can't direct a film myself.
-
I'm saying that for a guy who has done things right 95% of the time, sniping at him for the 5% he does wrong is petty and foolish.
-
As far as the drugs go, so what!! Because some faceless bureaucrat and elected statist bluenoses decided they know what's best for us in the manner of how we take care of our medical or pain problems, Rush is some kind of vile creature? My view it's none of the business of government when it comes to pain management. The fact that Rush had to get creative in order to get what he needed, I say good on him. The fact that he came to abuse them, well, there but for the grace of the Almighty go many of us. None of us is immune to character flaw.
What he has done with talk radio along with the internet may be two of the main reasons we wind up staying a free society of free men and women. If any of you are without blemish I'd probably call you out as adding to your blemish by your untruthfulness.
-
I'm saying that for a guy who has done things right 95% of the time, sniping at him for the 5% he does wrong is petty and foolish.
I believe it is 98.6%. :lol:
-
Which means what?
Practically any politician who's even remotely right-wing has done more to combat statism than me. This doesn't mean they're immune to criticism.
It's like saying I shouldn't call Avatar a bad movie because I can't direct a film myself.
Criticize away. Nobody said you shouldn't criticize. It's the constant harping on the drug issue every time his name is mentioned. It's the carping that he's not perfectly in agreement with So-and-so's libertarian/hyper-rationalist viewpoint and therefore a statist busybody. That's what I'm objecting to, at least.
For the record, I disagree with him from time to time. I'm on record here as opposing Operation Chaos. (Though I must admit, it was high-larious. :laugh: )
-
Again:
Anybody have a link to Rush going after drug users and/or supporting the WoD?
I catch maybe 1/2 hour of his show per week, so it could have easily slipped my notice.
At this point, since I have asked twice and no one has yet provided any such link, I would have to stick a fork in the "Rush is a hypocrite because he used drugs but supports the WoSD" deal.
-
Again:
Anybody have a link to Rush going after drug users and/or supporting the WoD?
I catch maybe 1/2 hour of his show per week, so it could have easily slipped my notice.
At this point, since I have asked twice and no one has yet provided any such link, I would have to stick a fork in the "Rush is a hypocrite because he used drugs but supports the WoSD" deal.
I have been listening to the his podcasts for about 3 years now, I can't think of a single time he tried to "destroy the lives" of drug users.
-
At this point, since I have asked twice and no one has yet provided any such link, I would have to stick a fork in the "Rush is a hypocrite because he used drugs but supports the WoSD" deal.
Here's your fork:
"And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up"
Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995
-
Source?
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12536446/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/national/main1753947.shtml
Google can help you confirm it.
-
Why does it seem that what people say 10 or more years ago become a noose around their necks, to be judged by that rather than what they do in the present. I have completely changed my mind about the War On Some Drugs. I went from ignorance to strict enforcement to ambivilence to wanting the government to cease and desist with the boot on the neck of physicians and healers that prescribe certain substances to aleviate pain. As for pot it should be decriminalized. As for other recreational drugs, I'm sure they could have some benefit if brought into the light of day and seriously discussed in order to find the positive benefits from them.
Life is a series of mindsets that evolve through experience, knowledge, willful bad behavior, dumb mistakes and wisdom. I get pretty tired of those who accuse others of being hypocrites when what they should do is look in a mirror. My years have shown me that those who rail against others usually are guilty of the same flaws. I have found that certainly includes myself.
-
Why does it seem that what people say 10 or more years ago become a noose around their necks, to be judged by that rather than what they do in the present. I have completely changed my mind about the War On Some Drugs. I went from ignorance to strict enforcement to ambivilence to wanting the government to cease and desist with the boot on the neck of physicians and healers that prescribe certain substances to aleviate pain. As for pot it should be decriminalized. As for other recreational drugs, I'm sure they could have some benefit if brought into the light of day and seriously discussed in order to find the positive benefits from them.
Life is a series of mindsets that evolve through experience, knowledge, willful bad behavior, dumb mistakes and wisdom. I get pretty tired of those who accuse others of being hypocrites when what they should do is look in a mirror. My years have shown me that those who rail against others usually are guilty of the same flaws. I have found that certainly includes myself.
Well said.
-
Again:
Anybody have a link to Rush going after drug users and/or supporting the WoD?
I catch maybe 1/2 hour of his show per week, so it could have easily slipped my notice.
At this point, since I have asked twice and no one has yet provided any such link, I would have to stick a fork in the "Rush is a hypocrite because he used drugs but supports the WoSD" deal.
I heard him call for harsher penalties a few years back when I was listening regularly. Which is why I was asking if he still held that position.
Fisty: maybe people feel the need to point it out because of the kneejerk response it illicits. "He's a great man, he's done more for our country than you, you couldn't do what he does, you're just jealous etc etc"
-
Here's your fork:
"And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up"
Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995
That is something, no doubt, and he ought to own up to it or repudiate it. Especially WRT his own use.
OTOH, is there anything fresher than 15 years old? My own views on a few issues have changed over 15 years.
Since both sources, from 2006, cite the same 1995 quote, I suspect that there was nothing nearly as juicy from 1995-2006. Age does not disqualify one's words from being used, but a pattern of such positions over time and closer in time to the present would make a stronger case.
-
I think it says a lot about how much of a positive impact Rush has had that this one issues is the only thing people can turn to when trying to insult him over a few decades.
-
Both Elton John and Rush Limbaugh agree (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=106910) on the issue of gay marriage, FWIW.
Well, I'll be damned. Elton John hates gays! >:D
-
Being a successful entertainer is serving the country?
Two words:
Bob Hope
-
Here's your fork:
"And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up"
Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995
=D This is the best you've got? Seriously? He said fifteen years ago that drug laws ought to be enforced like any other law, and this is the proof that he's calling for "far harsher" sentences, or trying to destroy people's lives? And you don't even have context for it?
Nice try. We need a point and giggle smiley.
I heard him call for harsher penalties a few years back when I was listening regularly. Which is why I was asking if he still held that position.
Fisty: maybe people feel the need to point it out because of the kneejerk response it illicits. "He's a great man, he's done more for our country than you, you couldn't do what he does, you're just jealous etc etc"
Well, well, the truth is now a knee-jerk response. ???
But if he really did call for harsher sentencing, I'll take your word for it. I know it's hard to cite sources for talk radio, so I accept that. Still, harsher penalties for dealing crack is not the same as harsher sentences for doctor shopping. And since the state had no evidence against Limbaugh, we'll never know if he was a hypocrite. He didn't have to face the penalties, any more than any other drug offender who's acquitted.
-
grin This is the best you've got? Seriously? He said fifteen years ago that drug laws ought to be enforced like any other law, and this is the proof that he's calling for "far harsher" sentences, or trying to destroy people's lives? And you don't even have context for it?
And you don't see where this is trying to destroy people's lives?
-
Here's your fork:
"And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up"
Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995
That could mean anything. An "enforce the laws we already have" argument. An argument against the common leftist tactic of "It's the seriousness of the charge, and not the seriousness of the evidence." It could mean he was advocating something hypocritical in the wake of his own drug problem.
However, he has a LONG history of being intentionally taken out of context.
I'd need to see more.
-
So pointing out a negative truth about Limbaugh is bad, but replying to any criticism of him with the same accusatory "you aren't worthy to speak of him" crap is a-ok? Good to know...
For the record, I just dislike fanbois, regardless of what they are enamored with.
-
fanbois - those whose opinion of a particular subject is more positive than your own.
So pointing out a negative truth about Limbaugh is bad, but replying to any criticism of him with the same accusatory "you aren't worthy to speak of him" crap is a-ok? Good to know...
Where is your negative truth, and who said you weren't worthy to speak of him? If you'd like to explain or defend your position, you may begin at any time.
Edit: Oh, wait, by negative truth, you mean the fact that he was addicted to pain killer? Nothing wrong with pointing it out, unless you do it for no reason other than to (speciously) discredit someone who is on our side in a very grave struggle for our survival as a nation of free people. I think someone did that recently...
-
IMHO...the fact that your marriage is starting with entertainment provided by one of the world's foremost homosexual entertainers does not engender much faith in the marriage's sustainability.... =|
-
IMHO...the fact that your marriage is starting with entertainment provided by one of the world's foremost homosexual entertainers does not engender much faith in the marriage's sustainability....
It could be that his bride is a big Elton John fan, or Rush may be.
My wife and I had a mediocre polka band for our wedding reception, but we survived. I never even thought of invading Poland, either. ;)
If I had to base my entertainment choices on politics, religion or sexuality, I'd be stuck with Bruce Willis and Ted Nugent.
-
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061510/content/01125106.guest.html
"So we started putting it all together, and Kathryn's first request, her first hope, was to have Elton John.
As you know there was a health incident, a medical emergency for me -- and it amazes me that that is still being reported as a heart attack even though I, with the doctor standing next to me, conducted a press conference with pulled all the reporters off of Obama. He was there at the same time. And I said, it was not a heart attack. The doctor said wasn't a heart attack; we don't know what it was. But there's no arterial damage, no coronary disease. There's no blockage. I was given an angiogram. It was actually good, a giant picture of health. But while we were there we were staying at the Kahala Hotel on Oahu, and when we had checked in the general manager, Thomas Pauly, had told us that Elton John was in the suite right above us. We still hadn't resolved this, so I went out on our little patio deck 'cause his was right above, and I started singing Elton John songs standing there, hoping he would hear.
I'm singing, "Little Jeannieeee," and whatever Elton John songs I could think of, and didn't hear a word. Then the medical emergency happens. I got back from the hospital after a couple-three days there, and the general manager of the Kahala, Thomas Pauly says, "Elton John was asking about you," and I said, "Was he hoping I didn't survive?" "No, no, no. He wanted to know if you were okay because he knew you were staying here." So a lightbulb went off, and I said, "Kathryn, write him a note. Write him a note and get Thomas Pauly to deliver it and say whatever you want," and she did. So she puts this note together explaining how much we both admire his music, his career, his talent, his achievements. She puts in two or three paragraphs about me that she wanted him to know that are unlike the media portrayal.
-
My wife and I had a mediocre polka band for our wedding reception, but we survived. I never even thought of invading Poland, either. ;)
Of course not......then you would have to occupy a country full of mediocre polka bands... :facepalm:
If I had to base my entertainment choices on politics, religion or sexuality, I'd be stuck with Bruce Willis and Ted Nugent.
...and the problem would be?.... =D
-
Insults, ad hom, and the use of the word sustainability... >:D