Recycling and Literacy are Threats to America!

Luckily, for him, not according to his own standards of justice, as previously stated...

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Luckily, for him, not according to his own standards of justice, as previously stated...

Can you cite those for me? I'm unsure what standards you mean and when exactly he stated them. Thanks! Very Happy

0 Replies

Yeah, patiodog, spend a milli-seconds listening to the Limbaugh archives to find an example of him sniping at other people's values!

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Yeah, patiodog, spend a milli-seconds listening to the Limbaugh archives to find an example of him sniping at other people's values!

You're right of course! Never mind... how silly of me to expect a liberal to have any factual basis for a claim made here. Y'all just go ahead and type anything that sounds good, and I'll remember how much credence to give what you write. Very Happy

0 Replies

Scrat,

That kind of comment is best reserved for when people really don't have factual basis, as opposed to them having it and you being blissfully ignorant of it.

Here you go, this is factual basis to patiodog's reference. The following are all Limbaugh quotes establishing his standards in regard to drug use. Standards that, as patiodog said, were quite different from the standards by which he is treated.

Quote:

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. 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.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

Scrat,

If you want to make snide references about factual basis you would do well to have the facts on your side. Touting factual basis when you do not makes you look bad.

0 Replies

Craven - The fact that you may have facts to back up someone else's statement is not the same thing as that person having those facts, is it? Now, take a deep breath and back off, tough guy. Very Happy

But help me understand what it is you think Rush should do given his prior statements. I assume (and I'm not following this story) that he's got a lawyer and his lawyer is trying to keep him out of jail. Do you think that most people in his specific situation would see jail time? I don't. There's no doubt he has egg on his face, and he has stated that his experience has made him rethink previous statements regarding drug addiction, but what would you have him do, volunteer to do time for his crimes?

Pretend we're not talking about Rush and it's just some guy you work with who got addicted to pain killers, got caught, checked himself into rehab and is trying to stay clean. WHAT WOULD YOU ADVOCATE FOR HIM?

0 Replies

Either way there was factual reference.

As to what I advocate for Rush:

I think he should get past this and continue to make more money than all of us put together through overstatements like the ones I quoted.

I don't care that he used/uses drugs or even that his position was hypocritical. <shrugs>

He should do what he does best, and pander to the LCD and make more money than we who look down on him.

It might not make him a better person, but a richer person. And rich people can afford more drugs....

Seriously, I don't advocate anything for Rush. He doesn't affect me much either way.

0 Replies

Oh, for God's sake. I was simply relishing the irony of an individual who has repeatedly advocate harsh criminal sentences for drug users getting nailed for using drugs, and of a vociferous critic of the ACLU now receiving their assistance. That's it. I was amused.

This is why I generally stay away from the political boards. Christ, this isn't a freakin' newspaper.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Oh, for God's sake. I was simply relishing the irony of an individual who has repeatedly advocate harsh criminal sentences for drug users getting nailed for using drugs, and of a vociferous critic of the ACLU now receiving their assistance. That's it. I was amused.

This is why I generally stay away from the political boards. Christ, this isn't a freakin' newspaper.

Well, for the record, patio, I asked because I actually didn't know what standards you were referring to, and wondered whether you actually knew something specific or were just writing "off the cuff", as it were. I am just as happy to learn what Rush had said about this issue as I would have been to learn there was nothing behind your statements. My response to D'art was a bit caustic because I tend to give what I receive. I actually appreciate and share (to some extent) your sense of justice in this matter. It is not unreasonable to think that Rush should be treated as harshly as he would have others treated.

So please stick around. Don't let the occasional barking scare you off. I suspect that even those who are my harshest critics here are probably fairly decent sorts in person. In fact, I suspect we'd all have far better discussions in person than we do here.

Regards...

0 Replies

I s'pect we would. Nonetheless, the partisan bickering bums me out (even my own)...

0 Replies

Little k - yes - there was a referendum in the fifties re communism - sponsored by Oz's conservative government. The move to outlaw the party lost.

Scrat - firstly, liberal isn't a word used much in Oz, except the conservative party is called the Liberal Party.

I am not aware of the same obsessive behaviour around organisations that is being described - by either side. There is the occasional complaint about hidden agenda.

0 Replies

Deb, I was wowsa-ing the whole right-wing concept of what is too far to the left. I should learn to not make single-word replies all the time....

0 Replies

I think that Limbaugh got his when Franken outed him in Fraken's well researched book--"Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Craven - The fact that you may have facts to back up someone else's statement is not the same thing as that person having those facts, is it? Now, take a deep breath and back off, tough guy.

The fact that they're right doesn't matter. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Craven - The fact that you may have facts to back up someone else's statement is not the same thing as that person having those facts, is it? Now, take a deep breath and back off, tough guy.

The fact that they're right doesn't matter.

No, in fact, it does matter. If what I am trying to discern is whether or not the person who made the statement had a factual basis he could cite for making it, then it matters very much whether he can produce those facts or someone else does it. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Umm, I think these are meant to be group discussions, Scrat. If someone posts a request for further information, it's not a requirement that only one person can provide it. Perhaps if you want to conduct private, one-on-one communications with a poster, you could try a PM.

Just trying to be helpful here...

0 Replies

Is it permissable to ask someone who is trying to hijack the thread into a name calling session to take a hike? (Scrat)

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Is it permissable to ask someone who is trying to hijack the thread into a name calling session to take a hike? (Scrat)

No, it's not. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I figured that Ruch Limbaugh's advocacy of very strict drug laws and animosity toward the ACLU were common knowledge. My bad.

0 Replies

"facts" often obscure "truth" which is why all great civializations have elevated "art" above "facts." facts of the refraction light diminish the truth of rainbows. (I still support Kucinich)

0 Replies

Recycling and Literacy are Threats to America!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know